Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Chiefs (Administrative Authority)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) how many chiefs now exercise administrative authority in Nyasaland; and if he is satisfied that their powers are adequate.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Authority is exercised by 152 chiefs, including 49 sub-chiefs. I consider that their powers are adequate having regard to the development of democratic local government.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that some of the chiefs have been replaced by the Malawi Congress Party because they are in favour of federation? Can my right hon. Friend say how many have been replaced, and does he think that this is a good development in Nyasaland?

Mr. Butler: I could not give an answer to that without notice. I would be ready to answer it if it was put on the Order Paper. All I know is that authority is exercised by the number of chiefs I have mentioned, and in general I think that this is a good thing.

Secondary Education

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) whether the Government will implement the recommendation on secondary education proposed by the Phillips Committee on the Education of Africans in Nyasaland.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Nyasaland Government have accepted virtually all

the Committee's recommendations, subject to the availability of finance. Some of the recommendations have already been incorporated in a new Education Ordinance passed in March.

Mr. Fisher: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can arrange to have a copy of this Committee's observations placed in the Library—where I was unable to find them on three separate occasions—so that hon. Members can read this Report? In the meantime, can my right hon. Friend say whether he accepts the particular observation made by the Committee that the expenditure of £l½ million spread over a period of five years for African secondary education should be a responsibility which the United Kingdom ought morally to shoulder?

Mr. Butler: We have some copies of the Report in the Central African Office, and I shall be glad to place one in the Library of the House if my hon. Friend so desires.
As regards the sums envisaged, my hon. Friend's estimate is approximately correct. We have, of course, discussed the draft development plan with the Nyasaland financial delegation which visited London in April, and in these discussions the claims of educational projects took a very prominent place. My hon. Friend asks whether this should be the moral responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and of course we shall do our best, but the question is how much we can fit in of the total development plan, and we are doing our best to help.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that questions about the Phillips Committee have been asked in the House for some months, and that during this period we have found it impossible to get a copy of this Report placed in the Library? Will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously, not only at the question of making this Report available, but at the general question of making reports from Central Africa available to hon. Members?

Mr. Butler: I am glad that this Question Time gives me an opportunity to say that I will put a copy of the Phillips Report in the Library, and if hon. Members desire other information I will also try to provide that.

Sir G. Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend go further and say that he will? Would not he agree that education in Nyasaland is perhaps the first priority of all, and would not he agree that this country has a heavy moral obligation for it? When does my right hon. Friend think that he will be able to make a more expanded statement about this?

Mr. Butler: I have to carry with me my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am hopeful that we shall be able to help Nyasaland in this respect, and I do not think that Mr. Chisiza or Mr. Phillips when they were here had any reason to doubt that we were willing to help both with the recurrent budget and with the long-term plan.

Amateur Athletic Association

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he is aware that the Nyasaland Amateur Athletic Association has been compelled to abandon its activities as a result of instructions to missions and schools to boycott it issued by the Minister of Education; what were the reasons for these instructions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No such instructions have been issued by the Nyasaland Ministry of Education and Social Development.

Mr. Russell: Would my right hon. Friend have another look at this, because my information is that it has been issued and that the director of this organisation, who was originally on a two-year contract, has had to go after only 14 months?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will let me have the information in his possession.

Dr. Banda (Talks)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will make a statement on his talks with Dr. Banda.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will make a statement on his talks in London with Dr. Kamuzu Banda.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Dr. Banda has called on me since his arrival in London, but as arranged our main talks will take place next week.

Mr. Healey: Since the Home Secretary has conceded that Dr. Banda has received an overwhelming popular mandate for secession from the Rhodesian Federation and while accepting the desirability of the principle that there should be some economic co-operation between an independent Nyasaland and the neighbouring territories, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when the formal discussions start that commitments accepted voluntarily by a sovereign Nyasaland, undertaken after independence, are more likely to endure than commitments imposed on the Nyasaland leaders as the price of independence before it takes place?

Mr. Butler: The first problem that arises, as I expressed in the debate on 8th May, is the statement by the Malawi leaders that they were in favour of secession. I cannot give any answers in the House before our negotiations start, but all these matters will be borne in mind during our talks.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult Dr. Banda on his experiences in Nyasaland in establishing stability and good administration as a result of democratic elections? Surely he can learn something from this to apply in Rhodesia itself.

Mr. Butler: Certainly during my talks with Dr. Banda in Nyasaland itself, and this week, I have borne in mind the record of the Malawi leaders and administration.

Mr. Fisher: In considering this difficult problem, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that by a really overwhelming majority, in a record poll, the people of Nyasaland expressed their wish about leaving the Federation in its present form? Would he agree that it is rather difficult for us to allow Jamaica to leave the West Indies Federation by a much smaller majority in a much smaller poll and yet deny the same right to the Colony of Nyasaland in the Central African Federation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, but there is no question of denying anything at the present stage. All I have agreed with Dr. Banda


at present is that my advisers who will shortly be leaving for Nyasaland and Rhodesia generally will have to look into the consequences of withdrawal before we can come to a final decision. That is what I have told the House and Dr. Banda and that is the policy we are pursuing before a final decision is taken.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the lesson borne out by the repeated experiences of this country and others in Africa and elsewhere that in these matters issues of political significance are of overwhelming importance to the people concerned compared with economic considerations?

Mr. Butler: I certainly appreciate that, and that is what I stated myself at a Press conference which I held in Zomba. The economic considerations are considerable, but I agree that one notices the tendency on occasion to put the political ones first.

Local Courts (Advocates)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the employment of advocates in local courts in Nyasaland.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The revised Local Courts Bill in Nyasaland provides for the extension of the jurisdiction of those courts to include cases involving non-Africans. This extension may only be made with the consent of a Secretary of State and in that event legal representation will be permitted.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend explain why Dr. Banda said that Europeans who were legally represented in these courts would be thereby prejudiced?

Mr. Butler: I do not think it is necessary to put a misconstruction on what Dr. Banda said. I do not think this could be taken as implying that the courts would not be fully judicial in character.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Should not the principle be accepted that any accused person is entitled to be represented in all courts by an advocate?

Mr. Butler: I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is looking after his own affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Education

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will state the specific projects in the development of African primary and secondary education in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to which the United Kingdom is at present making a contribution in the form of loans or grants.

Mr. R. A. Butler: With permission, I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total sum involved?

Mr. Butler: The totals so far are as follows. For Northern Rhodesia just under £l million—about £962,000; for Nyasaland about £584,957; and for Southern Rhodesia we have just made a specific loan of £355,000 for help with education.

Mr. Swingler: Will not the right hon. Gentleman, in considering these Questions, now review the whole situation? Is he not aware that these sums represent a totally inadequate contribution by this country towards what is a totally inadequate programme for the development of primary and secondary education throughout these territories? Will he not, therefore, press upon the Treasury and the Government the need for a much larger contribution to what is the foundation of educational development, both primary and secondary, in these territories?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the totals I have given are really too bad, but I will continue to press my right hon. and learned Friend.

Following are the details:


NORTHERN RHODESIA


Project



Grant



£


Assistance to Secondary Schools, Trade Colleges and Teacher Training Centres.
350,000


Assistance to Secondary Schools, Trade Colleges and Teacher Training Centres.
100,000


Assistance to Secondary Schools, Trade Colleges and Teacher Training Centres.
512,560


Total
£962,560

NYASALAND


Assistance towards Primary and Secondary Schools and Artisan Training Centre, Blantyre
140,000


Teacher Training Centre, Blantyre
110,500


Lilongwe Secondary School for Girls
76,500


Expansion of Primary and Secondary Education and Teacher Training
257,957


Total
£584,957

Southern Rhodesia

Her Majesty's Government have offered the Southern Rhodesian Government a loan of £355,000 from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds for African education, but no specific projects have so far been decided upon.

Federation

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) whether he has yet arrived at any definite conclusion regarding the future of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not intend to reach any conclusion on this matter until I have received and considered the report of my advisers whose names I have just announced.

Sir T. Moore: Do I understand from that rather conditional reply that the Federation is likely to remain as at present constituted, which I believe to be right, or that a Federation will be continued, possibly with a different composition?

Mr. Butler: That depends very much on what my advisers find out and what we decide to do afterwards. My advisers will have, as their first charge, as I said on 8th May, the task of examining with the Nyasaland Government, before any final conclusion is reached, the economic and financial consequences for Nyasaland of withdrawal from the Federation. They will also have the task of examining—
possible alternative and acceptable forms of association with the other two territories, and … with the Governments of Northern and Southern Rhodesia … possible forms in which all three territories might be associated in future, or any alternative form of association that might be worked out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 245.]

Sir C. Osborne: Does not political independence necessarily involve economic self-sufficiency?

Mr. Butler: I think it all depends.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESSIA

Registration of Voters

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) whether he will extend the period for the registration of voters in Northern Rhodesia till 31st July, 1962.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I see no reason to extend the period of registration, especially as to do so would jeopardise the date of the election.

Mrs. Castle: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied the representation which I sent to him recently from the United National Independence Party in which it said that registration, particularly of the lower roll voters, could not be adequately achieved by 30th June, partly owing to the complexity of the franchise—which even the registration officers themselves did not properly understand—and partly because registration could only effectively begin on 1st May because of the delay caused by the Federal elections? Is it not necessary that this party should be given the fullest possible opportunity to register its voters?

Mr. Butler: Yes, there is a lot to be said for that, but one or two arguments exist on the other side. First, with one week for registration still to go, some 35,000 upper roll and 68,000 lower roll voters have already been registered. That compares with the estimated figures of 30,000 and 70,000, so it is not too bad. On present plans registration ends on the 30th of this month and the lists must then be made up before considering delimitation. Bearing in mind the hon. Lady's representations, the greater evil would be to postpone the elections.

Caning

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) on how many occasions during the last year, to the most recent convenient date, sentences of caning were imposed in Northern Rhodesia.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central


African Office) in how many cases sentences of caning in addition to imprisonment have been inflicted in Northern Rhodesia during the past twelve months; and for what offences this punishment has been inflicted.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In the year ending 31st December, 1961, which is the most recent period for which figures are available 78 adults and 740 juveniles were sentenced to caning. I will, with permission, circulate the list of offences in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Castle: Does the right hon. Gentlemen not think that these figures are extremely alarming and very unsatisfactory? Why should caning, in addition to imprisonment, be imposed for such offences as theft and acts to prevent arrest? Is it not quite wrong that young people aged between 16 and 21 should be liable to this double punishment for all offences for which a sentence of over three months imprisonment is imposed, except where in lieu of a fine? Will not he stop this iniquitous situation?

Mr. Butler: These matters are the subject of Northern Rhodesian law. Therefore, any question of revision is for the Northern Rhodesian Legislature to decide and I do not think that I can add further to it today.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures are disturbingly large, much larger than we expected? Is he aware that he has a responsibility for what the Northern Rhodesian Legislature does? Will he not enhance the reputation he has of being a humane Home Secretary by showing himself to be a humane administrator in penal matters in these colonial affairs?

Mr. Butler: There are limits to the extent to which I can intervene. This is essentially a matter for the Northern Rhodesian Legislature. I have given the figures accurately, as I have obtained them by telegram, and this is the latest position.

Mr. Manuel: How can the Home Secretary possibly justify the attitude he is taking in this case? How can he justify a standard that he would not dare to adopt here in relation to people sentenced—that they should have this additional

caning? Will not he look at the matter again and try to exert his good influence in order to get a moderating influence in connection with caning in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: When questions were asked before by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) I asked for full information to be given me. I am in the process of studying it. Meanwhile, I must preserve the position of the Northern Rhodesian Parliament.

Sir C. Osborne: How can it be fairly said that these punishments are excessive without knowing the full details of the crimes?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps my hon. Friend will study the list of offences when I circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Manuel: What did the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) get as a boy?

Sir C. Osborne: I used to be walloped.

Following is the information:


SENTENCES OF CANING AWARDED IN THE YEAR ENDING 31ST DECEMBER, 1961


Offence
Adults
Juveniles (a person under 19 years of age)


Against public order
10
78


Escape and rescue
1
9


Rape
2
2


Indecent assault
1
8


Other offences against public morality.
1
6


Grievous harm, wounding, assault, etc
4
22


Other offences against the person
3
19


Theft
21
260


Theft by servant
4
64


Burglary and theft
3
10


Housebreaking and theft.
3
71


Storebreaking and theft
4
63


False pretences, cheating and fraud
7
—


Receiving stolen property
2
10


Arson
—
19


Forgery and coinage
1
22


Other offences against property.
6
27


Motor traffic ordinances
1
14


Interference with a motor vehicle.
—
8


Other offences against local laws
4
28


Total
78
740

Fort Jameson (Disturbances)

Mr Healey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) if he will publish the names of persons killed in the disturbances at Fort Jameson on Easter Sunday.

Mr. R, A. Butler: There were no deaths in the disturbances at Fort Jameson on Easter Sunday. Four people were injured, three of them seriously, but all have now recovered.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been widespread reports that bodies were discovered after these riots and were buried secretly under Government auspices? Can he say whether he has any information about infiltration by recent immigrants from Katanga into the A.N.C. party during recent months and whether elements from Katanga have played any part in these recent disturbances?

Mr. Butler: I should want further confirmation of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, but I will look into it. Regarding the former, my information is as I have given it, having obtained it only yesterday, but I will certainly investigate what the hon. Gentleman says.

United National Independence Party

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) to what extent the conditions listed by the United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia for participation in the forthcoming election, particularly in relation to public meetings and political prisoners, have been met.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think the United National Independence Party will find, when they have studied my reply to their representations, that their conditions have been substantially met. Subject only to the over-riding need to maintain law and order, both they and all other political parties in the territory will have the fullest possible freedom to conduct their election campaigns. As the hon. Member knows, there is no political prisoners in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us are

hoping that the U.N.I. Party will participate in the elections, but is he also aware that there are two problems which are still disturbing them very greatly? While there are no prisoners who are technically political prisoners, there is a considerable number of prisoners charged with other offences the motive of which is political. The second question is whether he is aware that there is still a limitation on public meetings, particularly where the rights have been taken from the chiefs and placed in the hands of the British district officer?

Mr. Butler: I sincerely hope that the U.N.I. Party will take part in the elections. My recent information, which I have from contact with Mr. Kaunda, leads me to hope that it will. I am aware of these other considerations, but I think that they are not likely to put off the U.N.I. Party from taking part in the election.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

United Nations (Resolution)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) what consultations he has had with the Government of Southern Rhodesia regarding the resolution adopted by the General Assembly United Nations. No vote has yet been new constitutional conference.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The debate on this resolution is still proceeding at the United Nations No vote has yet been taken on it.

Mr. Brockway: I anticipated that reply. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not now important that we should recognise that United Nations authority does extend to the struggles of peoples for democratic rights in any country? Will the Government begin to reconsider the view that these matters are not within the scope of the United Nations?

Mr. Butler: It is one matter for the United Nations to pass resolutions on the subject of territories for which Her Majesty's Government have full responsibility. That is one question. It is quite another question here, when Her


Majesty's Government devolved responsibility in Southern Rhodesia as early as 1923.

Mr. Healey: Could the Home Secretary clear up a matter which has been puzzling many people both inside and outside the House? The British representative in these discussions in New York claimed that Her Majesty's Government needed time in order to influence the situation in Southern Rhodesia. How can this be squared with the repeated statements of the Home Secretary that Her Majesty's Government have no power whatever to do anything at all in Southern Rhodesia? Is it not the case that if the Government need time to do something, then they have, in fact, the power to do something, and if they have the power, they should use it now?

Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Member's interpretation of what Her Majesty's Government's representative said is not quite correct. What he was chiefly aiming at saying was that the issue was not quite so immediate, in view of the fact that the Southern Rhodesian elections are being postponed. In regard to any influence which Her Majesty's Government can exert, it is entirely a case of influence, because we have no power.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Advisers (Appointment)

Sir R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Central African Office) whether he has appointed his advisers who are to visit Central Africa and examine the problems of the future relationships between the territories.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Yes, Sir. The group of advisers will be led by Sir Roger Stevens, a Deputy Under Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, whom my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary has agreed to make available to me for this work. He will be assisted by Sir Ralph Hone, Constitutional Lawyer, Professor Arthur Brown, Economist, and Mr. D. A. Scott, who will for this purpose be temporarily detached from his duties as Deputy High Commissioner in Salisbury. The scope of the advisers' work will be defined by the terms of my statement in the debate on 8th May.

Sir R. Robinson: Can my right hon. Friend say when his advisers will be going to Central Africa?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; in the early part, or, more likely, the middle of July.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Secretary of State's Visit

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on his visit to India and Pakistan.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): During the Recess, I paid short visits to India and Pakistan and had useful talks with President Ayub and Mr. Nehru and with other members of their Governments. Both in Rawalpindi and Delhi, we discussed the safeguards needed to protect the trading interests of the two countries, in the event of Britain joining the Common Market. The Indian and Pakistan Governments each inquired from me about the prospects of obtaining further financial aid. I also discussed with Mr. Nehru India's requirements for fighter aircraft.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply and apologise to him for having brought him here for one Question. Nevertheless, may I ask him if he was able in these discussions with two great members of the Commonwealth to put forward any positive plans, not just for preserving our interests now and in the future, but for expanding trade to the mutual advantage of the three countries concerned?

Mr. Sandys: That was, of course, at the base of all our talks—the necessity and desirability of expanding trade, not only between this country and India and Pakistan, but also, if we went into the Community, between those countries and Europe.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that the Indian representative in Brussels described Her Majesty's Government's earlier proposals for India and Pakistan interests as requiring India to behave like a performing flea, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether as a result of his discussions with Mr. Nehru and


President Ayub any changes have been made in the British proposals to the European Community?

Mr. Sandys: We did not discuss acrobatics, but, apart from that, we naturally went into the whole question of the proposals which are being put forward and are being discussed at this very moment in Brussels. I think I was able to assure the Indian and Pakistan Governments that we were putting forward their requirements in Brussels to the utmost extent possible, but, equally, I was able, I hope, to convince them that some of the requests which they would have liked us to sponsor were not negotiable and were outside the scope of the negotiations.

Mr. Stonehouse: Was the Secretary of State able to give an assurance that in regard to the export of manufactured goods from India and Pakistan, in particular textiles, those countries would have at least comparable outlets in the enlarged Community as they now have in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Sandys: That is the purpose of the proposals which we have put to the Six.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Albu. Question No. 17.

Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order. In answering Question No. 16 the Secretary of State dealt with the question of the purchase of MiG aircraft by the Indian Government. Surely the House is entitled to know something more about this. I wanted to put a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he will understand my difficulty. The House has managed to deal only with the majestic total of 16 Questions by 3 o'clock. I have been much too indulgent and have to restrain my instincts to be generous.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

College of Aeronautics

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Education what plans he has for the future of the College of Aeronautics.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): The college wishes to continue as an institution of post-graduate teaching and research. Its present policy is to concentrate primarily on aeronautics but to extend its activities, as it has already begun to do, into allied disciplines such as automobile engineering, control engineering and welding technology. This policy has my full support.

Mr. Albu: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is able to give the college the go-ahead on its present policy, or is he awaiting the report of the Robbins Committee before finally considering what should be done?

Sir D. Eccles: The college has plenty of scope for expanding now, but I am aware of the further plan that the college has laid before the Robbins Committee, and we must await the report of that Committee.

College of Further Education, Loughton

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Education what progress has been made in the College of Further Education in Loughton, Essex; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: I understand that work on the site started on 26th March last.

Youth Service Development Council (Report)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make provision for the publication of an annual report by the Youth Service Development Council.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I think the best arrangement is to describe developments in the youth service in a separate section of the Ministry's Annual Report.

Mr. Willey: I appreciate that, and also the usefulness of the bulletins on the Youth Service, but will the Minister consider the matter again? Does not he think that the work of this Council would be much encouraged if it had the power to make an annual report? This would make it much more difficult to cut the provision for the Youth Service.

Sir D. Eccles: I am ready to discuss the question of an annual report with the Council, but this matter has not been raised by the Council. As I am Chairman, I would be aware if it had been raised.

Information and Statistics

Mr. Wiley: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to provide that information and statistics relating to education shall be brought more up to date.

Sir D. Eccles: I have reorganised the statistical services of my Department in order to extend the range and improve the presentation of educational statistics and to speed them up. The recent publication Statistics of Education Part I contained new information and the series relating to schools and teachers were available three months earlier than usual. Part II will be published next month and an improvement in the timing of these and other publications will be possible as the revision of the statistical system is completed.

Mr. Wiley: I appreciate what has been done, especially in the presentation of the statistics, but will the Minister continue to exercise pressure to see that this time-lag is reduced? At present the usefulness of these figures is not as effective as it should be because of the delay in presenting them to the public and the House.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of this difficulty, and I will do my best to clear it up.

Training Colleges

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education why, when the training colleges were, on average, taking one-third more students than their official teaching capacity, the Gloucester, Totley Hall, F. L. Calder and Westminster training colleges took 183 fewer students during 1961–62 than their recognised teaching capacity.

Sir D. Eccles: The first two colleges have in the past regarded their teaching capacities as lower than the figures I sent the hon. Member on 7th June, but plan to increase their numbers in 1962–63. Of the last two colleges, one has fewer students in training now than in 1957–58

because of its change to new premises, the other because it did not admit students in 1961–62 in view of its impending closure.

Mr. Boyden: Would it not have been possible to take in more general studies students in all these colleges, and, if the staff was not adequate to deal with general studies—because it was a specialist staff—could it not have supervised some part of the extra students' training and made other arrangements for their more specialist teaching?

Sir D. Eccles: I have asked the colleges to "crowd-up." The hon. Member will realise that these are housecraft colleges and that the specialist rooms used for housecraft training are not very suitable for the purpose of "crowding-up". It is much easier with ordinary teacher training than where we require this specialist teaching equipment.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education what special measures were taken by the Kingston-upon-Hull, Cardiff, Coloma, and Trent Park training colleges which enabled them to take twice as many students as their recognised teaching capacity during 1961–62.

Sir D. Eccles: These colleges, like many others, are making an intensive use of the available teaching facilities in anticipation of their enlargement under the expansion programme. Three of them are using temporary accommodation not reflected in the assessment of "teaching capacity".

Mr. Boyden: I agree with the Minister that this is very commendable, but why is it that, for example, when Trent Park was able to make arrangements for 50 detached students in Southend, practically none of the other training colleges in the area were interested in this kind of project?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree entirely with the hon. Member that exceptional measures should be taken by the training colleges, possibly by admitting more day students in order that in the next two years we may not lose candidates of good quality. I assure the hon. Member that we are doing all we can to encourage these developments.

Mr. Boyden: Cannot the Minister send out a circular stressing what Trent Park


has done, and that kind of thing, so that imagination can be put into some of the principals?

Sir D. Eccles: I will see whether the example is one which I should send round to other colleges.

Auxiliary Helpers

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education (1) what salary and conditions are to be offered to auxiliary helpers in primary schools;

(2) what training arrangements are now proposed for auxiliary helpers.

Sir D. Eccles: As I told the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) on 28th May, I am awaiting the views of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers on the general question of the use of auxiliary staff in schools; it is too early yet to say what their conditions of service will be.

Mrs. White: Will the Minister let us know during what period he is hoping that these auxiliaries will be recruited? Is it to be in the next school year, or the year after that? Is he prepared to urge a very quick report on this and say that these people are so valuable that they should at least be recruited early? Secondly, can he give some indication whether he has had further thoughts on the suggestion that this kind of work is suitable for girls leaving school, in view of the fact that some of us consider that it would be a dead-end occupation?

Sir D. Eccles: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, the National Advisory Council is working under very great pressure and, of its own accord, has been having special meetings to consider this question—which is a difficult one—in all its aspects. On the second part of the supplementary question, I hope that there will be two sources of recruitment—one of older women, who might wish to do this kind of work, and the other of girls who feel confident that they are going to marry very soon after leaving school and would like a short-term job which brings them into contact with children, rather than go off into commerce, or something of that kind.

Mrs. White: Is not the Minister aware that most educationists are completely at variance with the view that he has expressed in his last reply, and think that it is very undesirable for a young woman, even if she is confident that she will get married, to go into this work without at least trying to obtain some qualifications? One never knows what may happen in later life.

Sir D. Eccles: I am afraid that my information from headmistresses is rather different from that which the hon. Lady has obtained. If any young lady feels that she will be married within one or two years after leaving school it is not likely that she will take up further training. She will want to go into a job where she can collect a little money.

Mr. Jennings: Although it is not suggested that the system of auxiliaries should be placed upon a national basis, is my right hon. Friend not aware that many local authorities have already established systems similar to this? Will he draw upon the experience of these authorities for any future plans?

Sir D. Eccles: I will.

Mr. Wade: Is not there some inconsistency in a policy which extends the period of training at teacher training colleges from two to three years and, at the same time, recruits auxiliary helpers with only a few months' training?

Sir D. Eccles: These are not teachers in any sense of the word. The object of these auxiliaries is to relieve the fully-trained teachers of sub-professional duties, and nothing more.

Mr. Boyden: Is not the Minister responsible for a considerable amount of confusion on this subject? In the debate did not he refer to these people as holding something like "short-service" commissions? Has he ever heard of a general duties officer in the Royal Air Force who is inferior in quality and training to any other sort of officer? Does not the shortness really relate to the commission and not to the quality of the people coming forward?

Sir D. Eccles: The confusion is in the hon. Member's mind. The question relates to auxiliaries. During the debate I put forward a suggestion that had been made to me quite separately, that there


should be short-service commissions for teachers who would in the end take the three-year course but would take only a two-year course first. This is an entirely different proposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Liverpool (Minister's Visit)

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to Liverpool to see slum conditions; and what action he intends to take to speed up slum clearance in Liverpool.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): My visit to Liverpool made very plain that the city has one of the biggest and worst slum clearance problems in England. Some of the living conditions there are appalling. The problem needs to be tackled urgently, and with sustained vigour and determination. This was fully recognised by representatives of the city council. In discussion, I told them that there would be no brake on the council's rate of house-building. I also put forward a number of suggestions for speeding up progress. These are to be followed up with technical assistance from my Department. A big problem in the longer run is land. The Government have already designated a new town at Skelmersdale to meet this and further measures will be examined with the council and the other authorities involved.

Mrs. Braddock: I personally appreciated the courtesy which the right hon. Gentleman showed me, which made up a little for the very grave discourtesy shown by the Liverpool Corporation by not inviting me to accompany him around my constituency. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has seen, will he attempt to speed up consideration of the compulsory purchase orders in his Department which have been sent by the local authority? It is awaiting confirmation of four compulsory purchase orders in respect of 100 houses covered by the Malta Street, Amity Street No. 2, Rankin Street and Church Flags orders. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will he ascertain

whether it is possible to speed up the question of agreeing compulsory purchase orders When they reach his Department?

Dr. Hill: I appreciate the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question. I will do what I can to speed up consideration of the compulsory purchase orders to which she referred, but she will agree that the big issue is to get a drive on in the immediate future with land available on sites already cleared and on sites in overspill schemes, together with the land which will take about 12,000 houses now available on the periphery. A great drive is needed there at the earliest possible date. I recognise that it will be some years before Skelmersdale comes into full operation, and there will be further problems of land.

Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the birth rate in Liverpool, which is substantially higher than the average throughout the country, aggravates our employment and housing problems? Will he consider making Liverpool, in common with some other Victorian cities, a special case for extra help, despite the fact that the new Conservative authority in Liverpool is building more houses than the previous authority?

Dr. Hill: I agree that there are many children in Liverpool, which adds to the problem with which we have to grapple with all vigour and speed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Resale Price Maintenance

Sir C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the fact that it is six months since his Departmental inquiry into resale price maintenance was completed, what action he now proposes to take on the recommendations.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave on 26th June to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling).

Sir C. Osborne: That is not good enough. Is my right hon. Friend aware


that, although the chemists and other similar traders are worried that price maintenance may be abolished, many members of the public feel that this policy tends to keep up prices? A statement should be made by my right hon. Friend about what he proposes to do on this matter. Will he make up his mind about it and let us know what he has decided?

Mr. Erroll: This is a very important matter, and I wish to consider all aspects of it before finally making up my mind.

Mr. Nabarro: While not associating myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will make representations to the Leader of the House for this matter to be debated before we rise for the Summer Recess, as it is one of very grave moment to hundreds of thousands of traders and manufacturers everywhere, and an arbitrary decision should not be taken by the Government without consulting the House first?

Mr. Erroll: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present, I am sure that he has heard what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir T. Moore: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that if resale price maintenance were abolished the book trade, for one, would be in chaos and would probably collapse?

Mr. Erroll: The book trade had its opportunity to make representations to the official Committee when it was sitting.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (ACCIDENT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Before I answer Questions, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hope the House will allow me to state with what regret we will have seen the news on the tape of the accident to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). I feel sure that all of us will join in sending him an appropriate message.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the Prime Minister's proposal? We would warmly support the sending of such a message.

Mr. Grimond: I should like also to be associated with what has been said.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (IMMIGRANT WORKERS)

Ql. Sir C. Osborne: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the offer of houses to immigrants by the nationalised industries, in order to attract them to work in this country, which gives such workers priority over those in this country who are on local authority housing lists.

The Prime Minister: The nationalised industries do not offer houses to immigrant workers. The British Transport Commission and the London Transport Executive arrange lodgings for immigrant workers who are single or have come here without their families.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been announced that the British Transport Commission has offered housing accommodation to 2,500 Jamaicans to come over to man the tube trains and buses? Was that offer made with the consent and knowledge of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and does my right hon. Friend really feel that immigrants should have housing priority over British workers?

The Prime Minister: As my Answer says, this is a question not of the allocation of houses but of obtaining suitable lodgings for these workers when they come.

Mr. Gaitskell: If we want these people to help us to run the public services of the country, they must live somewhere when they come here. Will the Prime Minister make it plain that there is no question of their obtaining council houses but only of getting furnished lodgings available in houses the landlords of which are prepared to take them?

The Prime Minister: Yes; that is what my reply says.

Sir C. Osborne: Since many English working men and their families find it difficult to get houses or lodgings, is it reasonable that priority should be given to immigrants over English families who have waited years for a house of any kind? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many people in this country are very worried about developments of this kind?

The Prime Minister: We must have a sense of proportion in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in introducing the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill that no one doubted the value of the contribution which the immigrants made, especially in certain services. But we recognise that this housing pressure adds to the difficulties, and it was one of the reasons why powers were taken to control the total numbers of immigrants.

Sir C. Osborne: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister, in the light of recent failures of high altitude tests, what consultations he has had with President Kennedy and other heads of governments concerning the danger of an accidental nuclear explosion and the steps to be taken to prevent widespread devastation.

The Prime Minister: In certain recent tests there has been a failure in the missile system. The missile has then been deliberately destroyed as a safety measure. There is no danger of an accidental nuclear explosion in these circumstances, and the latter part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Swingler: Nevertheless, is it not alarming in the extreme to hear of projectors going astray and getting out of control, as has been reported, in the course of these tests and of the warheads having to be prematurely exploded? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what advice he has received from British or American scientists, or from any other scientists, that it is absolutely impossible for a terrible accident with devastating consequences to occur?

The Prime Minister: I think that the arrangements, the mechanisms, for doing what I have said are perfectly satisfactory and are regarded as safe.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRIVY SEAL (SPEECH)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, in a television broadcast on 20th June, concerning Her Majesty's Government's negotiations to join the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if the speech of the Lord Privy Seal during his Broadcast on television on 20th June, on Britain's application to join the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal repeated the arguments for joining the Common Market provided that satisfactory arrangements can be made for the interests of the Commonwealth, of British agriculture and of our European Free Trade Association partners.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Lord Privy Seal said that entering the Common Market was compatible with Socialist planning, whereas the fact is that any measures, such as priority, discrimination or control of the movement of capital, that interfere with competition are prohibited under the Common Market and, therefore, Socialist planning is impossible?

The Prime Minister: While, naturally, I should feel very sad if that were true and should offer my condolences if it were so, we have had a debate which lasted for two days and which was a very good debate. I do not think that the House would expect me to deal with the matter by way of question and answer, except to say that I think the House felt that both in the debate and outside this House my right hon. Friend has handled this matter with great confidence and skill.

Mr. Stonehouse: Was it not an extraordinary broadcast for the Conservative Party, in view of the fact that the Conservatives won the last election on a policy of opposing our going into E.E.C.? Is it now proposed that the


Conservatives will fight the next election on a new mandate to go into E.E.C.? Is the Prime Minister going to have a General Election before committing us to this, or is he proposing to nominate the Colonial Secretary or some of the eminent ex-Ministers who sit on the benches behind him to speak against Britain coming into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is anything that I can add after the debate which we had.

Mr. Bence: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about' whether there was any opposition offered by the other five members of the Common Market to the proposal of the Italian Government to nationalise Italian electricity?

The Prime Minister: We are getting into intricacies of Socialist planning which I cannot follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL SECRETS ACTS

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now ready to move to appoint a select committee or some other form of public inquiry into the scope and working of the Official Secrets Acts, with a view to their clarification and amendment and the prevention of abuses.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Silverman: Has not the right hon. Gentleman on a number of previous occasions undertaken to reconsider his attitude to this question after the disposal of the judicial inquiries then proceeding on appeal to the House of Lords? Does not he realise that the state of the law, as was shown in the discussion in the House of Lords and in the judgments, does call urgently for a public inquiry?

The Prime Minister: I did not undertake to reconsider. I will repeat what I undertook to do: to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, when certain appeals have been disposed of, whether action is necessary. The reason I am not yet quite ready to do that is, although the case has been to the House of Lords and although I understand that their Lordships

the Law Lords have decided to report to the House of Lords their view that these appeals should be dismissed, certain formalities have not been completed, and the reasons for the dismissal of the appeals and the judgments have not yet been delivered. I think it right that I should wait until that is finished before—as I certainly will do—I carry out my undertaking to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — PIT CLOSURES

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister in view of the special problems now facing the mining industry as a result of pit closures, if he will take steps to appoint an additional Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Power, whose duties will be confined to dealing with the problems of this industry.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us acquainted with the work of the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power very much regret the illness which has forced the hon. Gentleman to give up that appointment? Is the Prime Minister further aware that we are completely surprised that a Minister has been appointed whose connection with the mining industry and its great and important problems we do not understand? Is he aware that we have had one Minister in that office who has a background of Eton and Oxford and now we are to have another? Does the Prime Minister think that a qualification for dealing with the problems of the mining industry?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the courteous remarks made by the hon. Gentleman about my hon. Friend who was unfortunately taken ill and who, we all hope, will make a complete recovery. The problem arising regarding displaced persons is one of finding alternative accommodation, and up to now the Coal Board has been very successful in dealing with it. The larger problem, which lies not with the Minister of Power but rather with the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State, is the wider question of alternative employment.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of us appreciate his remarkable display of tolerance in appointing to office some of the "rebels" who sit on the back benches opposite?

The Prime Minister: It makes me feel that, with his everlasting youth, the right hon. Gentleman may well have hope.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Boundary Commission (Midlands)

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to set up a separate Boundary Commission for the Midlands.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke): No, Sir.

Mr. Cleaver: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the immense amount of work which the Boundary Commission has to carry out in the City of Birmingham? Is he aware that following the alteration to the ward boundaries the position will be that some hon. Members of this House will represent wards which will no longer exist and that some electors will vote in one ward at municipal elections and in another at General Elections? In view of this uncertainty, can my hon. and learned Friend say when the Boundary Commission is likely to report?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: This must be entirely a matter for the Commission. Parliament has been careful to make it an independent body not subject to any Ministerial direction. When the Commission intends to make a report it is obliged to inform my right hon. Friend. But it has not done so yet.

Mr. Cleaver: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that thirteen constituencies are involved in this matter; that immense difficulties are created for the town clerk's department and that we should like the uncertainty allayed?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: We are well aware of the difficulties in this matter. Anyone who wishes the Boundary Commission to take action should write to

the Secretary of the Commission at Somerset House. If any representations are made to my right hon. Friend, they will be forwarded to the Commission at that address.

Mr. V. Yates: If such representations are made, will the Minister bear in mind that if the Boundary Commission were to carry out a major scheme in Birmingham before the end of the ten years which the Minister has promised would elapse, it would be a very serious matter for Birmingham and there would be a second dispute?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I cannot take sides in this dispute. It would be quite improper for the Government to urge the Commission to go either speedily or slowly. Parliament has made quite clear that in this delicate matter the Commission must be completely and utterly independent.

Public Order Act, 1936

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will so amend the Public Order Act, 1936, as to make it applicable to racial and religious prejudice.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the Public Order Act, 1936, with a view to making incitement to colour prejudice an offence.

The Minister of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): No, Sir. However much we may deplore appeals to racial and religious prejudice, my right hon. Friend is not convinced that there are sufficient grounds for proposing any amendment of the Public Order Act. It is already an offence under the Act to use, in any public place or at any public meeting, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned.

Mr. Royle: Has the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman been called to a debate in another place on 14th May when his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor agreed to consult the Home Secretary to see whether this proposal could be adopted? Can he say whether consultations have taken place?


May I ask, further, whether, in Section 5 of the Public Order Act it would be possible to insert words such as, "speeches calculated to incite racial or religious prejudices"? In view of one or two things which we have heard this afternoon, and also in view of what may well take place in Trafalgar Square, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is a real danger which might be averted if such words were inserted in that Act?

Mr. Renton: I am aware of the debate in another place; indeed I have read it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has consulted the Lord Chancellor about the suggestion that the Public Order Act should be amended. It is felt that the mere expression of insulting words which do not and are not likely to cause any breach of the peace does not come within the scope of the Public Order Act and that we should be making the rather heavy machinery of this Act an instrument for punishing what, in effect, is merely slander or an expression of prejudice. We feel that that would be going too far in interfering with freedom of speech.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that there are regrettable signs of an increase in colour prejudice propaganda of a vicious and demagogic sort? Is he aware that, as the centre of a multiracial Commonwealth, it is of tremendous importance that this country do everything possible to make clear that this kind of propaganda is regretted by and is repugnant to the majority of the inhabitants?

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the whole House deplores propaganda and expressions of prejudice of that kind. The question which arises here is whether we should use the Public Order Act machinery to try to stop it. Having considered the matter carefully, we think that it would not be a wise thing to do.

Sir C. Osborne: Can my hon. and learned Friend explain why it is that hon. Members opposite regard as an incitement to violence and as a crime any statement made from this side of the House in defence of Englishmen in their homes?

Mr. Speaker: That must be out of order. The Minister cannot be responsible

for explaining the views of hon. Members opposite.

Mr. S. Silverman: If the Government consider that the Public Order Act is not the right weapon to use in this matter, which he says everybody deplores, will he advise the House what is the proper method? Will he bear in mind that the free expression of this kind of insult tends to prejudice the climate of opinion, which in other countries has led to the most abominable crimes in all human history, and which in this country has already led to scenes of public disorder and violence which everyone deplores? Is it right, in that situation, that the Government should adopt a purely negative attitude? If the use of the Public Order Act is not the right way, will he consider what is the right way and recommend it to the House?

Mr. Renton: The Questions on the Order Paper which I have endeavoured to answer deal with the Public Order Act. The supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman raises a very much wider question. It so happens that under the provisions of our law it is possible to deal with many of the types of incident which arise, and I would refer, as an example only, to the offence of using insulting words and behaviour under the Metropolitan Police Act.

Mr. J. T. Price: The Minister's statement referred to the discussion that had taken place between his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor on this matter. Does his reply mean that the Home Secretary, who is not a lawyer, has told the Lord Chancellor, who is a most distinguished lawyer, that he does not know what he is talking about?

Mr. Renton: Indeed, no, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 2ND JULY, AND TUESDAY, 3RD JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.

WEDNESDAY, 4TH JULY—Second Reading of the Trinidad and Tobago Independence Bill.

Committee and remaining stages of the Acts of Parliament Numbering and Citation Bill [Lords].

At seven o'clock, private Members' Motions will be considered.

THURSDAY, 5TH JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debates will take place on B.A.O.R., until seven o'clock, and afterwards on the Berlin Situation.

Both debates will arise on the appropriate Votes.

House of Commons Members' Fund Bill: Second Reading.

FRIDAY, 6TH JULY—Finance Bill: Third Reading.

Committee and remaining stages of the Trinidad and Tobago Independence Bill

The business proposed for MONDAY, 9TH JULY, will be: Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.

There will be a debate on Education in Scotland, on the appropriate Votes.

Second Reading of the Building Societies Bill [Lords] and the Town and Country Planning Bill [Lords], which are consolidation Measures.

Motion on the Small Farmer (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the White Paper announcing the Government's views on the Pilkington Report is likely to be published, and will he give us an assurance that there will be a debate on the Report and on the White Paper, if published, before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Macleod: We shall publish the White Paper on the Pilkington Report next week and there will certainly be a debate, in Government time, on the Pilkington Report before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman will recall our exchange before the Recess about the Sea Fish Industry Bill and the announcement of Government policy, in another place, that subsidies would in future be paid for vessels bought in foreign shipyards. He will

recall that I asked him when we were to have an opportunity of debating this matter. Can he now answer that question? As, in another place, an Amendment carried in Committee was defeated on Report, when will the House of Commons have an opportunity of discussing and voting, if necessary, upon this important change in Government policy?

Mr. Macleod: Speaking from memory. I think that there was a subsequent opportunity to discuss it on an Adjournment debate. I do not think that it would be proper for me to discuss the business of another place on the business submitted to this House. The opportunity to discuss and vote on this matter, is, of course, in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition, if he chooses to use a Supply Day.

Mr. Gaitskell: Do I understand that the Orders made under this Bill will not be debatable in the House?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. I did not mean to imply that at all. That, of course, would provide an opportunity.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement next week on the progress being made with the report of the Select Committee on Lords Reform? Having regard to the lamentable departure of Lord Hinchingbrooke from the House, would he consider advising the Select Committee that we would like to have an interim report on the narrow issue of whether a peer who is a Member of this House and who has refused the writ of summons to the Upper House might be allowed to continue to sit in this House? Will my right hon. Friend consider advising the Select Committee on those lines?

Mr. Macleod: I think that it would be a mistake to try to give new instructions to the Committee that the two Houses of Parliament have set up.
I am sure that it would be improper for me to make an interim report on a matter which we have referred to a Committee of this importance.

Mr. Wade: Is the Leader of the House in a position to say whether a debate will take place on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police and, if so, when?

Mr. Macleod: No, Sir. Apart from the preliminary observations which have been made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, this is a matter which we are still studying and would like further time to study.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider including in the business proposed for Monday, 9th July, the matter of the Small Farmer Scheme, because many of us would like to deal with small farmers' problems in far greater detail than could possibly be done in the short time that would be available in that debate?

Mr. Macleod: The business that I have announced is exempt and, therefore, my hon. Friend's eloquence will not be stopped by the clock.
The business before ten o'clock, as he will appreciate, is Supply time, the allocation of which is for the Opposition.

Mr. Hoy: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my right hon. Friend about the Sea Fish Industry Bill, is it not a fact that the House will not have an opportunity of recording its view of the decision to pay subsidies to foreign shipyards, but under the negative Resolution procedure will have the opportunity only to approve or reject an Order for paying subsidies to certain sections of the industry?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, but there will be an opportunity for discussion on the Order. I do not think that the wider issue is affected by what has happened in another place, which, in the end, has had the effect merely of restoring the Bill to the condition in which it left this House.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, before we rise for the Summer Recess. we will have a debate on Far Eastern affairs, particularly on China and the influence which it is exerting on South-East Asia and India?

Mr. Macleod: There will be many competitors for debates during the last few weeks before we rise and it is at least likely that some of them will cover aspects of foreign affairs. Whether they will cover those aspects I cannot yet say.

Mr. Lipton: May we have an assurance that before the House rises for the Summer Recess the Writ for Dorset, South will be issued, as the electors of that unfortunate constituency will otherwise be disfranchised, perhaps until next winter?

Mr. Nabarro: One thing is certain—that the Labour Party will not win South Dorset.

Mr. Macleod: I could not give the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) an undertaking in those terms.

Mr. P. Walker: Can my right hon. Friend say when we can expect an early debate on the Report of the Jenkins Committee?

Mr. Macleod: I could not give that undertaking. This is an important and valuable Report, but, as I have said, there will be many claimants on the rather limited time for important debates in the weeks left to us.

Mr. C. Royle: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on Tuesday his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary made a statement on the suspension of the constitution of Grenada and that I requested that we should be allowed an hour or two to devote to the subject? Is the right hon. Gentleman ready to give time, if only a couple of hours, to clarify that situation?

Mr. Macleod: I do not have that in mind in the business which I have announced, nor in the programme which I am planning. But I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. P. Browne: Owing to the tardiness of the Opposition, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have a full-scale debate on farming, with particular reference to the Price Review, before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Macleod: The Price Review and similar matters are essentially matters of Supply and we would be very glad to debate them if they were put down, but I cannot hold out any hope of Government time for them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,

That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Matter of Science and Industry in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. lain Macleod.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1962–63

CLASS IV

VOTE 2. BOARD OF TRADE (PROMOTION OF TRADE, EXPORTS AND INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY AND TRADING, &C., SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a sum, not exceeding £3,842,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1963, for the expenditure of the Board of Trade on the promotion of trade, exports and industrial efficiency, and on trading and other services, including subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.—[£3,062,000 has been voted on account.]

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. Redmayne] put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COTTON INDUSTRY

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. For the assistance of the House, Mr. Speaker, could you indicate whether you are prepared to call any of the Amendments on the Order Paper and, if so, which?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It is my intention to call the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and no other.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move,
That this House notes the conclusions of the Estimates Committee (in their Fourth Report 1961–62) that failing a speedy and satisfactory


solution to the related problems of imports, marketing and fuller use of plant and machinery, much of the expenditure incurred under the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, will have been to no purpose, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take positive steps without delay to promote the stability and prosperity of this important industry.
As the Motion refers to the Report of the Estimates Committee, I wish, first, sincerely to thank that Committee for making such a thorough inquiry into the operation of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959. It is reassuring to read in paragraph 16 that the terms of the Act have been carefully interpreted and efficiently administered, because large sums of public money were, and still are, involved. Both the Cotton Board and the Board of Trade have deserved the thanks of the industry and the House for their part in a very difficult operation.
It is, however, disturbing to note that the Committee felt obliged to go out of its way to record its "conviction"—an emphatic word to use—that failing a speedy and satisfactory solution to the problems of the industry, much of the expenditure incurred will have been to no purpose. In other words, £10 million to £15 million of public money is in danger of being wasted.
The Committee's Report was signed on 3rd May. How much nearer are we today towards finding a speedy and satisfactory solution to the related problems of imports, marketing and the fuller use of plant and machinery? No nearer at all, not a bit. There are only ten days left before the closing date for applications for re-equipment grants. In paragraph 20, the Estimates Committee drew attention to the disappointing rate of applications which was due, so it was told by witnesses, to the crisis of confidence in the industry. It has got worse since then.
Both sides of the industry are deeply moved. Feeling is running high. Protests, memoranda, resolutions and telegrams have been showered upon hon. Members on both sides of the House and cotton textile workers have been pouring into London to demonstrate their anxiety. Employers are making no secret of their loss of faith in the Government. A feeling of despair is creeping over the cotton industry. More mills are closing down or going on short

time and in many cases the official Ministry of Labour figures of unemployment are quite misleading because of the thousands of married women who have lately lost jobs in the cotton industry and who do not appear on the register. What is their feeling about this extremely worrying state of affairs? For months the industry has been feeling that the rug was being pulled from under its feet. Distrust of the Government has been growing and the culminating point was the statement to the House by the President of the Board of Trade on 6th June.
To get to the bottom of this upsurge of discontent we have to go back to 1959, although the beginnings go back further still. The year 1959 was the year of stocktaking, the year of fresh hope and renewed confidence. Why has all that gone sour within three short years? What has gone wrong and who, if anyone, is at fault? Let us look for a moment at the aims of the 1959 Act. They were fully set out in the White Paper at the time and the concluding paragraphs ask for the co-operation of both sides of the industry with the Cotton Board to achieve a definite objective of national importance, namely, a
compact, up-to-date and efficient cotton industry".
This was to be done, first, by eliminating what was called excess capacity, machinery idle, or underused, or never likely to be wanted again, and, secondly, by replacing out-of-date machinery by modern equipment. Although a great deal had been done—more, perhaps, than is generally realised—in that direction before the 1959 scheme, this further encouragement to bring the industry up to date was every bit as important as getting rid of excess capacity.
As the White Paper stressed at the time, all this was voluntary. No one was compelled either to scrap or reequip, but substantial financial inducements were given, the 1959 Act enabled the Government to pay two-thirds of the compensation for scrapping machinery. The remaining one-third was to be met by compulsory levies on the firms remaining in business. This was all conditional upon displaced workers also being compensated on terms agreed between the employers and the unions and financed by compulsory levies on the firms in the


several sections of the industry concerned.
Re-equipment grants up to one-quarter of the cost may be made by the Board of Trade. Here, it is appropriate to ask how the industry has responded to these desires for cutting it down to size. How far have we got towards achieving the
compact, up-to-date and efficient cotton industry
which was the aim of the 1959 scheme? How much has been scrapped? How much is being re-equipped? Paragraph 12 of the 1959 White Paper says:
Opinions vary about the extent of the excess capacity".
But estimates were made then which were taken by the Government as the broad preliminary assumptions upon which their proposals were to be based. These were as follows: in the spinning section, an estimated extra capacity of 50 per cent.; actually scrapped, 48 per cent.; in the doubling section, an estimated extra capacity of 60 per cent.; actually scrapped, 34 per cent.; in the weaving section, an estimated extra capacity of 30 per cent.; actually scrapped, 38 per cent.
The total compensation for this was £15¾ million, of which the Government's share was £10½ million. In the spinning and weaving sections the response was fully up to estimate. In the weaving section it was higher than the estimate. The short-fall in the doubling section was not as bad as it looks on the face of it, because of the very much smaller number of spindles involved. Therefore, I think that we can say justly and fairly that the industry did what was expected of it in this respect.
What about re-equipment? How far have we got in bringing the industry up to date? This is more difficult to say, because the last day for applications for re-equipment grants is ten days ahead, 8th July. The Estimates Committee gave figures up to the end of April. The total value of applications at that time was £43 million. That was said to be disappointing. By 1st June it had risen to £51 million. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Trade will tell us later today what the present position is. In April, applications seemed to be running at the rate of £500,000 a week. More recently, they appear to have been running at the rate

of £1 million a week. If so, that is encouraging.
On this summary I think that the House can say that the industry did what the 1959 scheme asked it to do. The industry did not let the Government down. Have the Government let the industry down? The almost unanimous verdict of both sides of the industry at this moment is, "Yes". We on these benches endorse that verdict. The indictment goes back well before 1959. Time and again we on this side warned the Government of the dangerous conditions ahead. Years ago we saw what was coming.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was asked by the main union concerned to prepare a plan to meet the situation which it foresaw and which came upon the industry all too swiftly. Had the Government bestirred themselves in 1955, or even in 1957, subsequent events could have been less serious. But the Government let things drift until the Prime Minister threw out a lifeline on the eve of the last General Election. That was the White Paper of May, 1959, and the Cotton Industry Act which followed.
The Government then gave the industry a lead and an inducement to contract. Public money and the good faith of the Government were pledged to the achievement of
a compact, up-to-date and efficient cotton industry.
I shall keep on repeating the objectives set out in the 1959 White Paper. The industry responded and played its part, though everyone knew all the time that whatever the industry did it would be unable to withstand the competition of low-cost Asian imports.
Now, in 1962, the Government have accepted a ceiling on those very imports at a level which events have proved does not leave a big enough market to keep our smaller industry fully active. That is the charge we make. The Government misled the industry into believing that, once the 1959 concentration scheme became fully effective, the Government would protect its reasonable interests. The Government have failed to do that. Instead, they are now forcing further contraction without openly admitting it and without compensation.
There is a pungent letter in The Times of 14th June from a Mr. Gartside on this very point. He says:
A Government policy which sponsors this complete dissipation of both public and private money in re-equipping an industry at a level of activity it has no intention of maintaining is highly reprehensible and is to be condemned.
What the cotton industry needed was a period of stability which would have given it time to consolidate itself and brace itself for the challenges ahead. We know that the real solution to the difficulties of our cotton industry is to widen and expand the opportunities of trade between Asia and the West. The long-term plans to achieve this should proceed with all speed. We fully support the Government's intention to accept the Geneva arrangement, because implicit in that arrangement is the very desirable objective of opening up wider channels for Asian textiles to come to Europe and America.
We are already taking our share. We are already taking a much higher percentage of domestic production from low-cost countries than any other Western country. The Government should now strongly urge other participants in the Geneva talks to accept fully and speedily their obligations to liberalise their import policies and relieve the United Kingdom of the heavy strain of importing over 500 million square yards of cotton piece goods a year for home consumption.
The Americans took the initiative in the Geneva talks. What are they doing now to show the way? The news we hear is that they are moving rather in the opposite direction. There is the strongest obligation resting on the United States to point the way to the objectives of the Geneva arrangement. As it is, no other country can remotely compare with what we are doing to absorb the growing output of the textile industries of these Asian countries, particularly those of the Commonwealth. We know that they are in desperate need of foreign currency and capital goods. We know that they are so eager to earn them by their own toil and skill.
The whole of the richer industrialised Western world has a plain duty to facilitate this expansion of trade. The strain

of trying to do it alone has brought our own cotton industry near to breaking point. Other countries must share this duty with us and do it quickly and liberally. The Geneva arrangement also contains provision for speedy action against new inroads into our home market from non-Commonwealth sources with whom we have no restraint agreements. We hope that the Government will not hesitate to use them if the occasion arises.
In the Brussels negotiations with the European Economic Community the Government have a clear duty to bring home to other members of the Community our desire to see the new, stronger and richer European Economic Community liberalise its import policies towards low-cost textiles. The present members of E.E.C. are doing remarkably little in that direction. Whether the news this morning offers better hope that accommodation can be made for an expanded export trade with Europe from Asian countries, I am not sure. But these are the longer-term remedies for the present difficulties which we should like to see shortened in time very drastically indeed. We must press on with that. Meanwhile, we are faced with immediate problems. I turn now to how they should be met.
The Government have announced the acceptance of an offer through the Government of Hong Kong to continue until the end of 1965 the present ceilings on their exports of cotton piece goods and made-up goods for retention in this country, in addition to limit-yarn exports, the present rates—that is to say, the ceiling of 185 million sq. yds. of cloth and made-up goods from Hong Kong alone. If India and Pakistan fall in with this arrangement, India will have a ceiling of 195 million sq. yds. and Pakistan 42 million sq. yds., making a total of 422 million sq. yds.
These are the current ceilings, which were due to expire at the end of this year and then be subject to renewal or modification. Those ceilings are 45 million sq. yds. higher than the 1959 ceilings, fixed at the time of the White Paper on cotton industry reorganisation. The lower 1959 ceilings were those in regard to which the industry had to make its decisions about scrapping and re-equipping. The 1959 ceilings were


the background to the White Paper. When they were increased soon afterwards, the success of the concentration scheme was impaired.
A marginal increase though it may seem to be, the extra 45 million sq. yds. cannot be brushed off as being only 3 per cent. of the total quantity of cloth consumed in this country. It is 3 per cent. added to 25 per cent. of our total consumption already taken up by imports.
The President of the Board of Trade said on 6th June:
… there is no case for going back to the 1959 levels …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1962; Vol. 661, c. 470.]
We believe that there is, and both sides of the industry are certain that there is. The President of the Board of Trade should recall the circumstances in which the ceilings were increased and tell us whether the conditions upon which they were increased justify retaining the higher levels subsequently accepted.
We believe that the Government have made a mistake in accepting the offer of Hong Kong to stabilise the present ceilings for the next three years. We ask the Government to reopen the matter and press for acceptance of the 1959 ceilings for Hong Kong, India and Pakistan. That is the first step to take. It would give a little extra room for home production in the home market.
But there are two things to say about it. The President of the Board of Trade may say that the present level of imports is below the 1959 ceiling. That may be because things are slack just now. But when the upturn comes in the three-year cycles which are so customary in this industry, the limits, whatever they are, will be just as important to us as they are to the countries from which we import these goods. They are all equally important to us. The fact that the present levels are below the ceilings is not a material point against restoring the 1959 ceilings.
But the second and more material question is, of course, the effect on the interests of Hong Kong, India, and Pakistan of going back to the 1959 levels. How serious would it be to them? We have read recently of the heavy strain put on the whole resources of Hong Kong by the flood of refugees from China. The population of Hong Kong is going up

and up. Hong Kong has a problem of people. The solution there appears to be in more and more industrialisation.
Mr. Claude Burgess, the Colonial Secretary there, is reported in The Times of 14th June to have expressed apprehension at the prospect of cutting back the opportunities for Hong Kong to export to other countries. Mr. Burgess said:
Not from choice but from necessity we are a manufacturing, commercial community. Indeed, the prosperity of our industry provides the reason why the world does not have an additional million refugees on its conscience.
In a further comment, he said:
… the stifling of our exports would transform this dynamic community into an international pauper and create conditions in which massive wholesale relief would be the only remedy.
We have to take careful note of the plight of a member of the Commonwealth. The President of the Board of Trade referred to these figures in justification for setting aside the objections of the industry here in favour of the higher ceilings that he was prepared to accept.
We understand, too, that India has exceptional difficulties at present. The Commonwealth Relations Minister has just been there. India has a serious balance of payments problem at present. It is true, of course, that it would be very much more damaging to the economy of India if we stopped drinking tea than if we stopped importing Indian textiles, because her exports of tea are very much more important to her than her exports of cotton textiles. Nevertheless, even a little is of importance to a country which is seeking a stronger external position. Pakistan is engaged in a tough struggle for economic viability.
These factors must carry weight with us very heavily indeed in our consideration of the matter. We on this side of the House are the last people who would wish to do anything to harm any part of the Commonwealth, least of all those countries on low living standards which are working hard to improve conditions. There has to be, however, mutual understanding of our respective difficulties. They have theirs; we have ours. We must try to find the point of mutual tolerance.
I see possible harm to the Commonwealth in two directions unless we can get acceptance of some lower levels of imports from those concerned. Our own textile industry can be discouraged beyond recovery. We may be damaging our competitiveness in European and other markets by destroying confidence at home. That is one danger. It would be a bad thing for the Commonwealth as well as this country if our own textile industry lingered, declined and died.
The other is that, unfortunately and regrettably, feelings of bitterness against our Commonwealth friends are showing themselves in much of the reading that has been sent to us in the last few days.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Justifiably.

Mr. Houghton: In my judgment, it would be deplorable if a sense of hostility towards our Commonwealth countries were to grow out of this situation.
We are equally anxious to avoid any similar feelings developing there towards us. This is essentially a matter to be settled between friends—good friends, candid friends. We really want to help, and that desire is in no way diminished or to be called into question when we say that there is a point beyond which it would be harmful for both of us to go. With energetic and persistent effort, it should be possible for the Government to persuade the signatories to the Geneva arrangement to show willing by taking the 45 million sq. yards of cloth goods to relieve the strain here.
The special and growing problems of Hong Kong may well need the early and particular attention of Her Majesty's Government and of the world generally, because there are all sorts of dangerous possibilities there.
None of this relieves the cotton industry of its own responsibilities. We hear criticisms of the out-of-date structure and marketing arrangements There is room, we are informed, for more verticalisation—something for which a better word should be found. At present, it is said that the grower looks for a spinner, the spinner looks for a weaver, the weaver for a finisher, the finisher for a wholesaler, the wholesaler for a retailer, and the retailer for a customer—all the way down the line.
Goods in various stages of manufacture are carted about from place to place for the several processes to be completed. The industry must strive hard to repay in higher efficiency all the attention and public money which has been spent upon it of late. This is not only a Lancashire problem. This is the first time that I have mentioned Lancashire in the course of my speech, mainly because I represent a Yorkshire constituency, in which there is an important part of the cotton textile industry. There is cotton in Yorkshire as well as in Lancashire.
This, however, is not a little local difficulty. This is a matter of national importance. The White Paper of 1959 said that it was
a definite matter of national importance
Some aspects of it call for Government action, for they alone can do what is needed. Textiles are in Commonwealth and world affairs, no industry more so. Textiles figure largely in political and economic discussions everywhere. They are part of the movement now being made, all too slowly, to redress the imbalance of human welfare between richer and poorer countries.
But here at home the country cannot expect one industry and particular localities to make unduly heavy sacrifices in the course of the fulfilment of obligations which rest upon the nation as a Whole. That is the issue, and it is one which the Government and the House must face. The 1959 schemes fully accepted that principle. It should be carried further to arrest the decline in the cotton towns. The Government cannot drive people out of business, and men and women out of employment, and towns out of a healthy civic life in the name of the Commonwealth without doing a good deal of repair work.
The cotton industry is not walking about with a chip upon its shoulder, as I have seen suggested. It has been caught up in the march of history. Realising that, the Government accepted a special responsibility for the future of the industry, and if they go back on that now there will be great indignation. This debate will tell—more confidence or less, one way or the other, will come out of it. The right hon. Gentleman's speech is awaited with keen interest not only in the House, but


widely outside in the country and in the Commonwealth, and all the indications so far are that he will mock the anxieties of the whole industry by now moving an Amendment to turn our Motion calling for positive action into a pious and complacent incantation.

4.14 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Frederick Erroll): I beg to move to leave out from "1961–62)" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
and welcomes the assurances on import policy contained in the Government statement of 6th June as providing the basis upon which the cotton textile industry can work for future efficiency, stability and well being within a prosperous national economy".
The Amendment stands in the name of the Prime Minister and the names of other of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
On 6th June I made a statement about the cotton textile industry and the imports of cotton textiles, and I now welcome this debate, which provides me with a further opportunity of explaining the Government's policy towards this important industry. I say "important industry" deliberately, because, despite its difficulties, the industry can certainly retain a valuable place in Britain's expanding economy, provided that it grasps the opportunities which still lie before it. The cotton textile industry now knows the extent of the restraints which have been set on imports for the next three and a half years. It can draw fully on Government funds provided by the taxpayer for modernisation and re-equipment. It still has a large home market and many opportunities for winning back lost export markets. No other manufacturing industry in Britain has the same definite safeguards.
There are opportunities for the future, and yet the industry is passing through a crisis of confidence which one must recognise. I believe that the industry is capable of passing through this crisis of confidence successfully, and I think that it will. Although Lancashire now possesses a highly diversified industrial structure, and a very prosperous and a successful one, too, Lancastrians still think of cotton as the county's main industry. In fact, of an insured population in the North-West region of just over 3 million people, only 277,400, or 9·2 per cent., are today employed in

textile manufacture. Nor are former textile workers unemployed. Unemployment in the cotton belt, at 1·5 per cent., is well below the national average of 1·8 per cent.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Minister regard the contraction of the industry which he has described as a good thing? On the degree of unemployment, is he not aware that in my constituency, where more than 50 per cent. of the working population still live by cotton, the present percentage of unemployment is as high as 8 per cent.?

Mr. Erroll: I am not proud or pleased about the contraction of any industry, but the contraction which has taken place is a fact. In Colne, the unemployment is 193 wholly unemployed, or 2 per cent., and in Nelson, which is more serious, the total is 617, or a percentage of 3·3.

Mr. Silverman: The figures are wrong.

Mr. Erroll: Hon. Members always say that the figures are wrong when they do not like the figures which they get.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose—

Mr. Erroll: I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) when he moved the Motion, and I have already given way once to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Mr. Silverman: This is to put the facts right.

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Member will have his opportunity during the debate.
Although Lancashire now possesses a highly diversified industrial structure, Lancastrians still think that cotton is the country's main industry, but the figures of employment show the position to be very different, and it is a good thing for the prosperity of Lancashire that so much diversification has taken place. I know that the record of percentage of unemployment which I quoted relates to the wholly unemployed and that there are special difficulties about short-time working, particularly at present, and the re-employment of older people from the textile industry. I shall say a word or two about that later.
I have said that the industry is suffering from a crisis of confidence. This is a plain fact, and I am sorry that it is so. The industry, I know, has a simple, one-word explanation for this—the word "imports". I will, therefore, deal with this matter at once and in some detail, although there are other factors, too.
Looking at Britain's trading policy in general, with only a few exceptions goods of all sorts may be freely imported into this country from all parts of the free world. We protect domestic industries by means of a protective import tariff, which tariff also enables us to give preferences to the Commonwealth countries and to our Colonies under the Ottawa and other agreements. In return, many of our exports, including cotton textiles, obtain preferential treatment in the Commonwealth. British cotton exports benefited greatly from these arrangements before the war, and such exports, when they are made today, still secure some benefit over those of foreign competitors.
When, therefore, cotton cloth and later yarn began to enter England from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong in the late 1950s we were bound to admit it free of duty and without quantitative restrictions. We recognised that these developing countries, for which Britain has a special responsibility, must find export outlets, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Sowerby, if they were to earn the money to pay for their imports. Indeed, many of their purchases are exports from Lancashire's own engineering and chemical industries.
But because these textile imports were adversely affecting the cotton industry, the Government supported the negotiations which led to the inter-industry agreements for voluntary restrictions on imports from India, Pakistan and Hong Kong in 1959. The Government went further than this. We realised that excess and idle capacity was overhanging the industry and impeding the necessary processes of modernisation and reorganisation. In the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, therefore, which had the full support of the House, the Government were empowered to make payments for scrapping plant under redundancy schemes and towards the re-equipment of firms deciding to remain in the industry.

Mr, H. Rhodes: I contracted out of that because I was bitterly opposed to it.

Mr. Erroll: I do not recall the hon. Member voting against the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Rhodes: I could not get a Teller.

Mr. Erroll: That certainly proves the accuracy of my statement about the full support of the House.
The year 1960 and the early part of 1961 was a period of high domestic demand for cotton textiles. There were rising prices and lengthening delivery dates, which showed that the cotton industry could not satisfy this demand. Imports from Asiatic Commonwealth countries were already restricted, so the obvious thing happened. Imports came in from other sources. Indeed, without those imports the British public might have suffered a shortage of cloth.
When the time came for the renewal of the inter-industry agreements—the story is complicated and I will not go into too much detail—the Commonwealth countries requested an increase in their permitted ceilings. This is germane to the question of going back to the 1959 ceilings. They did that because their ceilings had been held down while other countries had been able to take advantage without restriction of the then existing opportunities in the British market.
The present arrangements are due to expire at the end of this year. I could have waited, but I wanted, if possible, to secure a further extension of the agreements well before the final date of closure for the re-equipment grant applications. I wanted the industry to know how it stood in the years immediately ahead.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The right hon. Gentleman must not do this on us. We have had three Presidents of the Board of Trade over this period, all personal servants of Her Majesty. The use of the personal pronoun is an abuse of the procedure of the House, because it passes the problem to the right hon. Gentleman personally. He is speaking on behalf of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's advisers. He should do it collectively, and we will attack them collectively.

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry if I have offended the hon. Member. I was only varying the style so as not to make it too tedious. I will revert to the third personal pronoun if the hon. Member wishes it.
In any event, I wanted personally to know that the industry would be able to see how it stood ahead. The Government were greatly helped by Hong Kong's offer to continue with the present ceilings up to the end of 1965. These ceilings Include made-ups, together with an offer to limit yarn exports for the first time to the 1961 level, provided that India and Pakistan do the same. I am glad to be able to tell the House that India has now agreed to a similar limitation. Pakistan is still considering the matter, but I expect to secure her agreement shortly. The ceiling on exports of yarn from India and Hong Kong will operate as from 1st July.
I should like to say this to those who urge a return to the 1959 ceilings. The difference in the combined ceilings—not necessarily the actual imports, because imports are running at a lower level than that prevailing in 1959—is only 45 million yards, or about 3 per cent. of current consumption. The Commonwealth countries would have strongly opposed any proposal to reduce the present ceilings. We should have had uncertainty and rumour until the end of the year and, perhaps, no agreements at all thereafter. In any case, it would hardly be appropriate when urging other countries to share the burden more equitably if we were in the process of forcing the Commonwealth countries to reduce their ceilings, and against their own free will.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The right hon. Gentleman dismisses the 3 per cent. as totally insignificant. If it is such a small percentage as not to matter to Lancashire, why is not France prepared to increase her imports by 3 per cent.? Why does the United States slap a complete ban upon Hong Kong imports when she has had barely a 1 per cent. increase in imports? Is not this the whole background against which Lancashire is complaining and should not the President of the Board of Trade compel those countries to consider that a 3 per cent. increase is only a small thing?

Mr. Erroll: I cannot compel other countries to think that way. I am not saying that 3 per cent. is nothing. I know what it is—it is 45 million yards in a ceiling figure. This does not necessarily mean actual imports.
It would not make sense to insist upon trying, and perhaps not succeeding, voluntarily to cut back Commonwealth ceilings to the 1959 levels at the very time when we are trying to persuade other countries to increase their share of Commonwealth imports. The action of the United States was taken under the terms of the short-term Geneva arrangement as the United States was perfectly entitled to do.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me to clarify the figures about what the 3 per cent. involves? I have often seen this figure quoted and I regard it as a serious one on top of the existing levels that were implicit in the 1959 Act passed by this House. This is what I should like the right hon. Gentleman to explain. In 1959, taking the yardage of cloth as distinct from yarn, the figures recorded in the documents which have been sent to me from the same reliable source show that 370 million yards were imported and that last year the figure was 524 million yards. I do not quite know how the 3 or 3½ per cent. is calculated.

Mr. Erroll: I hope that I can help the hon. Member. He is quoting a figure of total retained imports from all sources. The figures which I have been discussing are the ceilings of imports from the three Asiatic Commonwealth countries—India, Pakistan and Hong Kong. The 3 per cent. and the 45 million yards relate to the ceilings from those three countries.
As an alternative to continuing with uncertainty during a difficult period for the future of the cotton industry we have secured an early agreement for a further three years, the continued inclusion of made-ups within the ceiling—there will be no extra for them—and an altogether new benefit which we have not had before, namely, a three and a half year limitation on yarn supplies. This surely is worth far more to the cotton industry than a belated return, if it could have been arranged, to the 1959 figures.
The Commonwealth countries concerned have far more serious employment and foreign exchange problems than we have. India and Hong Kong have shown real consideration of our industry's difficulties despite their own very real problems. Naturally, it is open to them to reconsider their position if we join the Common Market in the light of the outcome of the negotiations. Nevertheless, the arrangements represent a striking and practical example of Commonwealth co-operation.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Sowerby said. If I quote him correctly, he said that we have to show mutual understanding of each other's difficulties. I quite agree and I think that the arrangements which have been negotiated by and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government demonstrate that degree of mutual understanding of each other's difficulties.
I want now to say a word about imports from other countries. Supplies from China and other Communist bloc countries are severely restricted by quota. Supplies from Japan are governed by quota, as are those from Formosa, whose exports were cut back from over 30 million to 12 million yards. Supplies from Spain are regulated by an inter-industry agreement. The E.F.T.A. countries apart, supplies from Western Europe and the United States of America have to surmount a 17½ per cent. tariff. Union leaders and mill owners alike have told me that if they cannot compete with the high wage countries over such a tariff, the industry does not deserve to survive. I welcome that spirit, because a real threat comes from those countries. I shall say more about this presently.
There remains only the fear of a sudden rush of imports from a new supplier. This is a fear rather than a reality, but Her Majesty's Government wanted to dispel the fear and so help to rebuild confidence. That is why Her Majesty's Government announced a changeover to individual import licensing. The officials of the Board of Trade will be able to keep a much closer watch, with this system, on imports from all countries other than those already quota-ed or operating voluntary restriction schemes, and we will know exactly what is being imported and by whom. If

there is a sudden upsurge of imports from any new supplier I will immediately consult the industry, with a view to making a protest to the Government concerned and invoking the long-term Geneva arrangement if appropriate.
The industry now knows where it stands in relation to imports for the next three-and-a-half years, subject only to possible changes consequent upon our joining the Common Market. With imports from low-cost producers controlled in one way or another, the industry can plan for holding the rest of the home market and for winning its share of the many export markets which are still open to it. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who is winding up the debate, will refer to some of these export opportunities in his speech.
The Government have done all that they promised to do for the industry, and much more besides. There is no question of the Government writing off the industry, as some people have wildly stated. But there is a great deal that the industry must now do for itself, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Sowerby. I cannot agree with the conclusion of the Select Committee that much of the expenditure under the Act so far incurred may have been to no purpose. This was mainly redundancy payments. Much idle capacity was eliminated and firms remaining in the industry were able to plan ahead. Indeed, the redundancy scheme would have been worth while even if there had been no re-equipment scheme.
Despite the well-advertised lack of confidence, applications for re-equipment grants have been flawing in. On the day of my announcement they totalled about £52 million. Since then they have been coming in at a much greater rate and by last night the total was £73 million. I expect that by the closing date they will amount to £80 million or more. The Government, as the House will know, contribute 25 per cent. of the cost, while the applicants pay the rest. There is, therefore, still enough confidence in the industry to make applications in time, and the rate has accelerated since my statement was made.
I know that the industry dislikes being lectured on what it ought to do, and I shall resist that temptation today. I


would just urge the industry to read the full Report of the Estimates Committee, and perhaps I might add my congratulations to those given by the hon. Member for Sowerby to the Chairman of the Committee on what is probably the most informative document to be produced about the cotton industry since the Working Party Report of 1946. In particular, I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Sowerby for his very kind remarks about the officials of the Board of Trade.
Two propositions stand out clearly from that Report. First, reorganisation, a move from horizontal to more vertical organisation. Secondly, shift working. Leaders of the industry have indeed been saying the same thing and I could quote a number of examples, particularly from chairmen of firms who have done these very things and have no doubt that they were right.
The Government are helping with re-equipment, but only the industry can reorganise its structure and introduce shift working. It is unrealistic to think that every spindle and every loom now installed can be staffed for shift working. The workpeople for these shifts must come largely from among those already within the industry. The industry's labour resources must therefore be concentrated in modern, efficient mills.
These are the sort of changes which we as a nation must be prepared to make. I hope that the older people in the industry will be prepared to travel some miles, where necessary, to some new place of work in the industry. If there is no work in the textile industry for them to go to, the Ministry of Labour has arrangements for the retraining of workers for entry into other industries. There is a training centre in Lancashire itself.
The textile industries of Western Europe are, on average, ahead of ours. I should mention here—and something has already been said in an intervention about the restrictive outlook of other European countries—that there are no restrictions on Hong Kong imports into Holland, Belgium, Germany and Luxembourg. I take comparative figures for 1960, which was a prosperous year for the British cotton industry. In that year spindles were worked 104 hours per week in Belgium, 100 hours in Holland, 86 hours in France, and 78 hours in

Germany. In Britain, they were worked only 50 hours. Is it surprising, therefore, that production per operative in Belgium was 18,300 lb. for that year and only 10,000 lb. in Britain? This surely helps to explain why the countries of the Six sent us 72 million yards in 1961 and we sent them only 6 million yards.
But it is not only a question of yardage. I received a report last week from Australia, where British textiles enjoy a substantial preference. It said:
Italian, French, Swiss, German, American and Japanese cottons appear to be more popular than British cottons. British cotton fabrics have a good name for durability but not for colour or design. If local agents handling British cotton fabrics had stocks available instead of merely samples for indent purposes, far more business opportunities could be followed up.
This report speaks for itself, and it underlines what I have been saying about the sort of thing that industry must do for itself.
The industry has a Cotton Board, about which I want to say a few words. It represents all parts of the industry and it can help to ensure that the efficiency of the best firms—and they are amongst the best in the world—can be achieved by others as well. The Board, at its meeting with the Prime Minister and at its two meetings with me, forcefully pressed the industry's case for reduced imports. I look forward to co-operating with the Cotton Board in future and to discussing with it the industry's plans for the future as soon as it is able to do so.
In short, the Government have done their part, and the industry must now do its part. Within a prosperous national economy I firmly believe that the British cotton industry can find its rightful place.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I hope that the House will reject the disappointing and inadequate Amendment, disappointingly and inadequately moved by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that on this occasion many hon. Members from both sides of the House will be able to speak and, therefore, I hope to set an example by speaking very briefly. My position is made the easier by the fact that I last spoke on this subject on 23rd January


and the proposals and criticisms which I made on that occasion still hold good. The only difference is that the situation in the industry has further deteriorated since that time.
Over the last sixteen years I have probably made as many speeches on the cotton textile industry as anybody in the House. The difficulty is that for the past eleven years, whether speeches have come from my hon. Friends or from hon. Members opposite, and whether they have been addressed to the present Minister of Aviation, the present Home Secretary, the present Minister of Education or the present Prime Minister or any of the other right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench whom Mr. Cyril Lord once described as "the hangmen of Lancashire", all these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. I believe that the Government have a shameful record in respect of the cotton industry over the last eleven years.
I confess that I am a little tired of the subtleties that the President of the Board of Trade and his junior Ministers bring to bear on this subject. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I do not think there is any doubt that the Government's view is the same as that which was expressed in the Observer on 20th May when, under the heading "The case for letting cotton stew", it said:
… there is a good case for allowing this industry to go to the wall. No question of unemployment arises, as the displaced workers could easily find other jobs in present-day Lancashire.
I shall come to that point in a moment, but because the Government have adopted that point of view the process of liquidating cotton has been viciously speeded up during the last few years.
I should like to read to the House the views of Mr. Lewis Wright, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Weavers' Association and one of the most responsible leaders of the workers' side of the industry. Writing in Textile Mercury and Argus in March this year, he said:
The British Government has done more damage to our cotton mills over the past four years than British bombs did to German mills over the whole period of the last war.
Last night I read through the debates that we have had in this House during the last ten years. It was with a good

deal of sadness that I appreciated that what we referred to in 1952 as being a recession in the cotton industry would now be regarded as a period of roaring prosperity, so great has been the decline in the fortunes of the industry during that time.
My reasons for speaking in this debate today are really twofold. The first is that unemployment in my constituency is running at a high level. On 14th May, for example, the percentage of unemployment was 7·1 in Bacup, the second highest in Lancashire. There has been some improvement in Bacup since that time, but in the meantime the position in Haslingden has deteriorated and so has the position in Ramsbottom.
The second reason why I feed justified in taking up the time of the House is because of the heavy dependence of the Rossendale constituency on the textile industry. Roughly one-third of the insured workers in the constituency are employed in the manufacture of footwear, an industry which is subject to seasonal fluctuations and which has also been the victim of the importation of cheap goods from overseas, and another third of the insured workers are employed in the cotton textile industry. The proportion varies from place to place in the constituency. In Bacup, for example, of 20 cotton mills which existed a few years ago, only six now stand. In Haslingden, on the other hand, the position has remained fairly stable.
The Evening Telegraph, the paper which covers the cotton textile area, quoted recently the Cotton Board figures for employment in cotton textiles. It said that in the eight towns of east Lancashire 28,343 have been lost from textiles for one reason or another since 1954. It goes on to say:
Blackburn has lost 6,455 and Burnley 6,769—more than half in both cases—Accrington has 4,197 fewer, Colne 3,814 and Nelson 5,055, Haslingden, which had 7,656 textile workers in 1954, has lost only 643 and now heads the list of these eight towns its number of textile employees, with Burnley second, Blackburn third and Nelson fourth.
It is for that reason that my constituents view with a good deal of apprehension what appears to be the current decline in the textile situation.
I should like now to tell the House what is happening in the Rossendale


constituency at present. Mr. Robert Hill, the Secretary of the Rossendale Valley Textile Workers' Association, has told me that the general situation is one of uneasiness and lack of confidence and that order books are very short. Mr. Ivey, who will be well known to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) as the Secretary of the Todmorden and Bacup Weavers' and Winders' Association, says that two firms in Bacup have reduced their labour force and many workers have been made redundant without compensation.
Perhaps here I may interpolate, as an example of the tragedy which is afflicting this area, the fact that recently I met a lady who, after fifty-two years in the cotton textile industry, had been declared redundant without receiving a penny compensation for the services she rendered to the industry during that long period. Mr. Ivey goes on to tell me that three of the six surviving mills have been working a four-day week since late last year and that during that period there have been a number of weeks when full stoppages have taken place.
Mr. Joseph King, the General Secretary of the Accrington Card and Blowing Room Operatives' and Ring Spinners' Association, has written to me:
The position has not been so serious since 1945 as it is at present and has been since September, 1961. This Association has paid more temporary stoppage benefit than at any previous time since the last war.
Mr. King adds that since September two of the principal mills in my constituency have constantly had a four-day week notice on the notice-board, although in some weeks longer hours may have been worked. He tells me that one mill has had six weeks of full stoppages during that time.
It is, therefore, not surprising that I had a petition from nearly 300 workers in the Ross Mill, at Bacup, protesting against the present situation and concluding with this paragraph, which, perhaps, I may bring to the attention of the Government. It comes from the staff and the workers in the mill:
We realise that we need not ask you to vote against the Government, but would like to express an opinion that we do not think any Member, who now represents a textile constituency, will have any chance of being returned at the next General Election, who abstains from voting, or votes against our plea.

I believe that is a widely-accepted point of view throughout East Lancashire.
I conclude by saying that I am sick and tired of watching this steady murder of the textile towns in East Lancashire. The Government's acceptance of the 1961 ceiling is the final blow to the cotton textile industry. The 1959 ceiling is the very least that we can accept as a solution to the industry's immediate problem, and I confess that I would find the 1958 figure a great deal more acceptable than 1959.
But I do not believe that we shall get security and stability on the basis of these bilateral agreements for three-year periods. I believe that unless the view of the Estimates Committee is to be proved true—that the industry is in for a further decline and that public money will be wasted—the only way that we can avoid that and give the industry the confidence it so badly needs is by accepting the solution put forward previously by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and establishing a cotton purchasing commission. Only that can give security to Lancashire and, at the same time, enable us to discharge our obligations to the backward areas which everybody in Lancashire is anxious to discharge.
Appeals to reason, to economic good sense, to humanity and to social responsibility have all been equally unavailing. Let us hope that an appeal on more ignoble grounds—an appeal to the instinct for self-preservation of the Government—will at last produce results. Let them realise that if they persist in this policy, and in their campaign to destroy what remains of the cotton industry, not a Tory Member will be left in the textile towns after the next General Election.

4.49 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I will try to be brief, as I know that there are so many knowledgeable hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
First, I should like to welcome the Report of the Estimates Committee. It is an admirable Report containing an enormous amount of useful information and statistics. The Committee was fortunate in getting such valuable and knowledgeable witnesses.
The history of this industry is well known to most hon. Members here today. There has been a deplorable diminution in size in the last fifty years. I suppose that cloth production is now about one-sixth what it was fifty years ago. At that time it was the best organised exporting industry of any kind in the world, and I do not suppose that even now any other industry has attained the efficiency which the cotton industry had fifty years ago, even with all the difficulties of communication.
When I hear words of exhortation from the President of the Board of Trade, I wish that he could have been with me in the East, thirty years ago, walking through the bazaars trying to sell cloth, when we were even then up against cheap Eastern competition. Perhaps then he would not be so keen on making exhortations to people who have been through that difficult period.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that twenty-five years ago he and I and the President of the Board of Trade all sat on the very first of these contracting adventures, the Committee stage of the Cotton Industry Act, 1938?

Sir J. Barlow: I do not propose to follow that, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not doing so.
The diminution of the industry and the import of cheap foreign cloth has assumed serious proportions. In 1953, about 36 million yards of grey cloth were imported into this country. By 1959, that figure had increased to 371 million yards, and it must be remembered that from 1956 onwards, when the situation could have been well and properly controlled, Lancashire Members had been trying to get the Government to do something real about it. In spite of that, the Government dithered and procrastinated, and it was not until 1959 that we had the cotton redundancy scheme.
Unfortunately, the Board of Trade has always seemed to have a jaundiced eye when it has looked at the cotton industry. Same of us think that the Board of Trade has, for the last ten years, regarded the cotton industry as expendable. We wish to goodness that the Board of Trade would be more honest and forthright, that if it regards this industry

as expendable it should say so, so we can get on with the job in the proper way. It should not lead us up the garden path and then let us down at every stage.
When the Government introduced the redundancy scheme, in 1959, it was based entirely on the imported yardage at that time. There were agreed quotas with Commonwealth countries, and a certain very limited amount of foreign cloth was imported. It was said at the time, and everyone knew, that if that yardage was increased the scheme as it was offered and accepted would not work. When the Government allowed the doors to open, and dribs and drabs of little yard-ages to come in from here and there, they stabbed the industry in the back, rather like the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) was stabbed the other day, only in another place. The assailants probably had different motives, but the result has been similar in both cases.
Let us look at the increase in the import of cloth since the scheme was propounded in 1959. There has been an agreed increase from the Commonwealth countries. Owing to the difficulties and lack of demand, we know that that quota has not been taken up. Can quotas which have not been taken out one year be carried forward and added to the quota of the next year? This is an important question, and I hope that my hon. Friend will answer it tonight.
I referred to other imports from different countries. An increasing amount, which people in the trade knew was subsidised, came from Spain. The evidence about that is fairly well agreed, although it was questioned at the time by the Board of Trade. There was delay after delay, and agreement could not be achieved for a long time. I maintain that when sufficient evidence about this was provided the Board of Trade had a duty to stop immediately the dumping of this subsidised cloth.
There was also the question of the large and growing imports from Portugal, but no one realised the importance of this in 1959. Also, imports suddenly increased from Formosa and the Iron Curtain countries. In many cases the Board of Trade took the view that it was a small increase, merely a


few million yards here and there, which were negligible. But if the Board of Trade had had the business experience of some of us, it would have known that a small amount sold on a very weak market can do a vast amount of damage.
I remember that during the 1930s, with a weak wheat market, a small shipment of cheap wheat which came to Liverpool and had to be sold could devastate the home market for some time. The same thing holds good in all spheres. If we sell a small amount on a weak market, it can have devastating effects for months. We are taking from cheap Eastern producers the equivalent of about 35 per cent. of our home consumption. Does the Board of Trade recognise that, remembering that United States consumption is in the region of 5½ per cent. and that of the Common Market countries about 2 or 2½ per cent.?

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Sir Keith Joseph): I think that my hon. Friend referred to Commonwealth Asian exports to this country—that is the duty-free low-wage ones. They constitute far less than the figure given by my hon. Friend. I think that he has included in that figure all sorts of other exports to us. I think that the actual figure is about one-quarter.

Sir J. Barlow: I am glad that my hon. Friend has put me right about that. These figures were given to me, and I had every reason for believing them to be correct.
I was referring to the Common Market countries which take a small proportion of this Eastern cloth. I understand that many manufacturers in those countries have stated quite definitely that they have no intention of sacrificing their home textile industries and taking in cheap cloth from overseas. If we continue to take in this Asian cloth, which may well ruin our industry, we shall be in a very weak position to compete in the Common Market if and when we join it. It may put us in a very serious position.
Two of my hon. Friends and I have tabled an Amendment because we do not think that the Opposition Motion meets the case. It is too general. It is not sufficiently factual and we wish to raise certain points. Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, has not called the Amendment,

but that does not prevent my saying something about it. The Amendment was to add, at the end of the Question:
by applying the new licensing arrangements so as to limit duty free imports of cloth and yarn to the ceilings prevailing in 1959, to prevent the import of dumped or subsidised cloth and control the import of finished and made-up goods in suitable categories".
If the President of the Board of Trade does not prevent these increasingly large dribbles coming in from foreign countries our difficulties will be worsened. I believe that even some of the Commonwealth countries are subsidising their cloth. A friend of mine received a letter from an Indian firm the other day which stated:
As you are aware, the Government of India is encouraging the export of piece goods. In order to earn foreign exchange for those who export, import incentives are given in the way of import licences for machinery, dyes, chemicals, etc., with the result that the exporters, although they lose a lot of money in the actual export, make a lot of profit in the import of machinery, etc. The result is they are able to compete successfully and offer attractive rates.
That letter came to Lancashire a few days ago and I have heard similar sentiments expressed from other sources.
The matter does not end there. There are imports that are coming from other unexpected quarters. I am told that a hosiery yarn manufactured in Eire is being sold in the Midlands, delivered, at 47½d. per 1b. and that the same yarn is being sold in Eire at 68½d. per 1b. That sounds very much like dumping to me. If that case could be proved, and I think the Board of Trade knows something about it, what is it doing?
I believe that in 1959 Malaya and Singapore exported no grey cloth at all to this country. I am informed that last year they exported 4½ million yards. Is anything being done in this connection? Is the volume to be allowed to grow until hard feelings are expressed if we have to prevent it? I wonder what would have happened if other industries had been treated in the same way as the textile industry has been treated by the Board of Trade. What would have happened had this treatment been meted out to the motor car and other industries? Their time is bound to come as other countries become more industrialised. It is only a question of waiting.


Why should the textile industry be the first, and probably the greatest, to be sacrificed?
I wish to refer to another matter that was dealt with in my proposed Amendment: the question of categories of made-up goods. It will be remembered that there is to be a quota on the yardage of made-up goods. An enormous number of dresses and other goods are coming into this country at very cheap prices and there is evidence that the manufacturers are taking one category first, perhaps small children's dresses, sending thorn in at extremely cheap rates. This puts the British manufacturers out of business and is followed by the overseas manufacturers having the market to themselves—and up go their prices. Having done that they switch to another category of made-up goods and repeat the operation.
I would like my right hon. Friend to say that he intends to place made-up goods into various categories so that this sort of thing cannot happen. In any case, how much cloth does my right hon. Friend think will be imported in goods which are not in categories? For example, I believe that a large number of umbrellas—about 1 million a year—are coming in from the Far East, that quite a lot of cloth is used in their manufacture and that they are not in any category. There are probably many other 'articles of this kind taking cloth away from the mills of Lancashire.
The speech of the President of the Board of Trade today seemed like a repetition of the speeches I have heard so many times from different right hon. Gentlemen who have held his office. It contained a few new figures, but I can remember only too well one of his predecessors, an able and knowledgeable man, paying a visit to Lancashire. On that occasion he made himself most unpopular, partly because he thought he knew all the answers. I wish that right hon. Gentlemen in that position, and other Board of Trade spokesmen, had a little more experience of the difficulties of commerce before they tried to teach traders their business.
I very much welcome the activities of the Textile Action Group. That body was not easily formed. It is comprised of people who feel keenly on this subject

and I have every sympathy with them. They may not have put their case in the way that other people might have done, but they have served a very useful purpose and it was a good thing that Londoners in Regent Street yesterday had the opportunity of seeing some Lancashire caps and clogs. I hope that it will help them to realise that Lancashire is still a great place.
Having listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's speech, I must say how disappointed I was at what he had to say. As I said earlier, it seems that this industry, in the eyes of the Board of Trade, can be depressed—if not entirely eliminated. I can assure the House that I am a loyal supporter of my party, but in view of the circumstances I feel, very reluctantly, that I must vote against the Government tonight.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: The speech of the President of the Board of Trade, which was a mixture of platitudes and Ministerial jargon, reminded me of the story of the old woman with a cow who used to live in our village. She did not feed it very well—she was being economical—and boasted after it had died, "Just as it started living without eating it died." The same sort of story might be applied to some industries in this country.
The President of the Board of Trade is an engaging person, but unless he begins to put up a better performance than his effort today we shall soon have another right hon. Gentleman in his place. To make a speech of that description is totally against what his Department should now be doing. It should, instead, be looking after every industry and fighting the battle yard by yard. The speech he made today was not in a fighting spirit. We need to pull through.
Much has been said about the past and the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) recalled events fifty years ago. I need go back only three years, because in 1959 a Bill was introduced to give assistance to the cotton industry. At that time, the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich was saying that it would solve the difficulties of the textile industry. It did not, because the assistance given to the


industry in 1959 was tainted with politics, and this is well-known in Lancashire.
It was as nothing but a "put up job" so that seats could be kept for the Tories in Lancashire. This has been said time and again, both by leaders of the cotton industry and others.

Sir Robert Cary: Does not the hon. Member agree that at that time, not only here but elsewhere, it was thought to be an excellent plan? For instance, the German Government thought so, and intended to copy it themselves.

Mr. Rhodes: But it never came to anything. If it had come to anything of the sort in Germany, they might have had room to complain about it. We have to view this matter against the background of the economic circumstances of the day, whether of 1959 or now.
It was introduced without any inquiry into why the industry was reluctant to re-equip. There was no inquiry whether the industry was competent enough in the managerial sense, or whether, if re-equipment was done, it would pay t not at all. Not a single inquiry was made as to whether it was a good thing to do or not, except from the point of view of bringing in the Bill to do a political job. It was brought in too quickly, and without the necessary thinking and guarantees which should have gone with it.
At that time, the Government also accelerated the boom by helping other industries. In 1959 the motor car industry also received a boost, which was done through the Distribution of Industry Act. From £10 to £12 million was lent to the motor car industry in the early part of 1960. Multiplicity of orders and general boom conditions which prevailed made entirely false conditions in the industry.
There was no problem about these imports in 1960–61, because everybody was busy. Everybody had work to do, and good profits were made in the industry all round. Everybody was satisfied, but as soon as the boost for the General Election was over difficulties began with the balance of payments, culminating in the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last July. Then it became

obvious that we were in for another depression in the cotton industry, heralding another depression throughout the length and breadth of Britain.
I would remind the House that it is possible that this recession could be the worst of the lot. It could very well be that the trick of boosting up the activity of the country through increased manufactures of consumer goods or durables has had its day. The United States of America is already finding that it is very difficult to boost the economy on consumer durables and consumer goods. It could very well be that this is the most serious depression that we have ever had.
So we come to last year, when the agreement was running out. The old agreement was carried forward to the end of 1962, and a new agreement was desirable with the three Commonwealth countries. I am very glad to know, according to what the President of the Board of Trade said this afternoon, that India has agreed the terms, but I understand that Pakistan has still not made up its mind. I do not want to repeat the figures that have been on the desks of everybody during the last few weeks, and which have already been adequately stated in the House. I should now like to approach this matter from a slightly different angle.
When we have fixed a figure for Hong Kong, India and Pakistan, there must, somewhere, be a reasoned basis for it—a basis upon which the Board of Trade is prepared to stand by a decision. I take it that the Board of Trade is assuming a figure of 1,850 million sq. yds. as the amount which is used in the home trade. If we add to that another 100 million sq. yds., which is the part of the exports which we do not import to re-export, if the Minister is following me, that is a total capacity of 1,950 million sq. yds. It happens that in 1960–61 the amount that the cotton textile industry produced in its own mills was 1,450 million sq. yds., so that, in theory, that would mean that something over 500 million sq. yds. could be imported and nobody would take any harm.
But that would be all right if we never had a slump or a recession of any sort, because one could go merrily on, basing one's production on being flat out on 1,450 million sq. yds. The difficulty


about accepting the Minister's figures for the next three years on the basis of 1961 is that they provide a guaranteed market for cheap goods irrespective of conditions. There is nothing so wonderful for a manufacturer, I have always found, as having part of his production guaranteed. It is marvellous, because on that he can plan. Tory Members, and Labour Members, too, who have been arguing about the difficulties that they have been experiencing with the Purchase Tax, have always said, "Give us a guaranteed home market, so that we can build up our export trade upon it."
This is one of the conventional arguments. If we have a recession—and we do not know how far this one will go—and if the fashion or the tendency to change over to artificial or man-made fibres goes further than it has done, it will mean an unfair advantage to Commonwealth producers.
I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that instead of putting down an arbitrary figure for the imports of cloth on the 1960–61 basis he should make it a percentage. I would accept his figure of 25 per cent. as being near enough to the 1959 level. That means that if there is a boom it can go up, and if there is a depression it can come down.
During the various conversations that were held on the question of the arrangement made under G.A.T.T. for taking in Commonwealth cloth, I understand that representatives of the Lancashire cotton industry were present, and also that a definite agreement was arrived at by the officials of the Board of Trade that a protocol would be put into the agreement enabling this country to opt out of the arrangement for an increase of 5 per cent. per annum. How far has the Board of Trade got with the ratification of that agreement, and what is happening about it? Does it take the view that we can opt out of the increase of 5 per cent. per annum at will, according to the difficulties being experienced by the trade?
My next question concerns the Common Market. I understand that in respect of textiles there is to be a Common Market external tariff of 18 per cent., and that a reduction of 30 per cent. in this tariff will take place on

entry; a second reduction of 30 per cent. in 1965, and the remainder by 1970. I suggest that this is not good enough. The tariff should be introduced at once upon our entry. Not only that; it should be applicable to Commonwealth imports, also. Can that possibility be considered? Is there any truth in the suggestion, reported in the Press, that if there is any diminution in Commonwealth trade, as a result of the external Common Market tariff, a review of the situation will take place? Our entry should be based upon a more permanent arrangement. The trade must know where it stands.
Out of all this difficulty and trouble good could come, if the President of the Board of Trade and the Government applied themselves to the task. I am glad to know that they set such store by the Report of the Estimates Committee. The members of that Committee are glad to have a little pat on the back this afternoon for the work that they have done. Time and time again evidence was given before the Committee, even by the most optimistic supporters of the industry, that there were not more than 10 spinning mills in this country which could compete on equal terms with the Dutch. That is very serious. I want to know what action the Government intend to take about it. Time and time again, in evidence before the Committee, it was made clear from different sources that during the last three years more technical progress has been made than in the previous thirty. What are we going to do about that?
When I say that good could come out of it, I mean that if we act quickly now and do something in the next three years we may be able to take advantage of that technical progress and be able to compete on equal terms with our rivals.

Sir Cyril Osborne: The hon. Member says that he wants to get Lancashire spinners on the same level of competition as the Dutch. Up to the last six months, through a woollen company, I have been buying Dutch yarns at 8d. and 10d. a lb. cheaper than comparable Lancashire yarn. Can Lancashire jump as big a barrier as that?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, because there is no evidence that that is an authentic case.


I can show that connection. The Japanese are importing into Canada, and the Canadians are importing here, yarns and goods on the same sort of differential as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). The Canadians are simply transferring here what they bought from Japan. That may be only £2 million per quarter, but that is what is happening.

Mr. John McCann: Is it not a fact that it takes three months before these facts appear in the statistics, by which time it is too late to do anything about it?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
The President of the Board of Trade has talked about meeting representatives of the trade. I appeal to him to do so now; this time at a totally different level, in a different manner, and with a different agenda. The Report of the Estimates Committee should be circulated to every mill in Lancashire, so that textile men can have an opportunity to read the evidence before attending the meeting. The Minister should then call upon the industry to report upon its own efficiency. Let it tell the President what it considers its efficiency to be, and what proportion of it is capable of competing on equal terms with Common Market countries.
Many years ago the late Sir Stafford Cripps referred to the necessity of establishing what should be the ultimate size of the industry. Let the industry say now what size should production plants be to produce 1,450 million square yards in the best way. That is an item that should be put on the agenda. The industry should be asked to tell the President of the Board of Trade what the answer is. But what the Board of Trade must think of before it meets the cotton people is what contribution it will make. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I bitterly opposed the assistance which has been given to the cotton industry, but speed is now so essential that action must be taken within the next two months, in order that a programme can be thought out fog the next three years, covering the period of the agreement to give the confidence to the industry to make a fight for it.
If the industry says that it wants another scrapping scheme the right hon. Gentleman should seriously consider it. Can he extend the old scrapping system for one or two months? Can he give the industry statutory powers to enable it to do the job on its own? Or can the industry be given a loan, almost interest-free, for some years—perhaps ten years—so that it can get on with the job? All these points should be seriously considered, and fully discussed when the right hon. Gentleman meets the industry again.
I am disappointed that more hope has not been given to the industry this afternoon. However, I hope that my questions will be answered. I should like an answer to the question which I have asked about speed. The President of the Board of Trade should really challenge the industry this time on its own efficiency, what it needs, and then proceed, by one of the means which I have mentioned, to give them the help which they will need to do the job.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am very happy and fortunate to follow my old friend the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has taken a great deal of notice of what he has said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) went back fifty years in time. What people seem to forget is that from 1830 to 1912 the great textile industry, of which every Lancastrian—and I am one of them—is so proud, was in the position of Hong Kong today. We were a cheap cost production country and we were dumping textiles all over the world. We are now only being paid back in our own coin, because since those years—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Our trade unions dealt with that. That was slave labour.

Sir D. Glover: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my speech in my own way.
Since those years, quite rightly, the trade unions and other organisations in this country have raised the standard of living of the British people, and other activities have grown up, including the growth of the engineering industry in Lancashire. It is a very good thing for


the people of Lancashire that the engineering industry has grown while the textile industry has contracted. As a Lancastrian, I say that if there is to be a contraction in the textile industry I would sooner that it took place in semi-boom conditions, when people can get jobs in other occupations very quickly, than that it should take place in slump conditions, as it easily might have done.
I think that the Government have just as much right to be critical of the textile industry as Lancashire has to be critical of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend should not think that he will get away Scot-free before I sit down, because he will not, but I propose to say a few things which he will find comforting in his lonely splendour of isolation.
The textile industry has a great deal of responsibility in connection with the redundancy and re-equipment scheme of 1959. I had a lot to do with the negotiations in that scheme, and I was very glad that it was passed into law. But it was passed into law on the basis of the industry saying: "If you provide a scheme which will scrap the surplus capacity of the industry, provide us with some assistance in re-equipping and put a limitation on imports for three years, at the end of those three years, when we have re-equipped, we shall be in a position to compete." I was very doubtful at the time whether that would turn out to be correct. In the event, it has not turned out to be correct. This was perhaps inevitable.
The Government are not responsible for many of the troubles which have occurred since then.

Mr. Hale: Are not they?

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman makes brilliant speeches in the House. I do not pretend to be able to emulate him. Perhaps he will allow me to make my speech in my own humble way.
I have not any experience on the production side of the textile industry, but I have a life-long experience on the consumer side. I know how much the weather and other conditions affect this trade in this country. In 1959 the Government introduced a modernisation and re-equipment scheme, and the sun came

out and shone for months. The whole trade went crazy. Orders were placed months in advance, and the industry worked throughout 1960 on the sunshine of 1959. In 1960, we had a poor summer so that all that stock was not taken off the shelves. In fact, the stock multiplied. In 1961, we had another poor summer. In 1962, up to now we have had the worst summer in almost anyone's living memory.
Of course, inevitably this has some effect on the amount of trade done in the textile industry. Everyone is blaming the Government for the volume of imports when, in fact, they are running at a ceiling far below the ceiling figure of 1959.

Mr. S. Silverman: They are not.

Sir D. Glover: They are. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is like I.T.V."] This is nothing to do with I.T.V. This is "whiter than white" on B.B.C. As I say, at this moment imports are running at a figure considerably less than the ceiling figure of 1959.

Mr. Silverman: At the first "natural break", I should like to ask about that.

Sir D. Glover: In view of the Pilkington Report, the hon. Member will not expect me to provide a natural break.
I now wish to deal with the problems of the future. If I may give a misquotation, "If blood is the price of empire, Lord God we have paid in full". Because of our obligations to the Commonwealth, the Lancashire textile industry has taken the brunt of the support of the developing countries overseas.
I cannot understand—and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is not here because he would support me with his cry of "brother" across the Floor of the House—members of the Opposition Front Bench, who all the time talk about the brotherhood of man, objecting to raising the standard of living in this country.

Mr. Houghton: The hon. Gentleman is seriously misrepresenting the case which I made when he says that we on this side want to reduce or object to raising the living standards of the people. He was present when I made


my speech. He will see when he reads it tomorrow that the version which he is giving is a distortion of my words.

Sir D. Glover: I am very glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. If a person spends all his time saying that the believes in purity and then goes straight off to a house of ill-fame, his actions are those by which people will judge him. If the hon. Gentleman spends the major part of his speech saying that imports should not come in, it is not a weighty argument to say that we should not do anything adverse to people overseas.
I now come back to the Board of Trade. I do not think that the industry can do what we want it to do in three years. If I were contemplating re-equipping, it certainly would not give me enough time to do it. If I were given five years, then, what with delivery times of machinery and so on, perhaps two years of it will have passed before I am fully re-equipped and in production. I then have three years in which I can be assured of a profitable business. Under conditions such as those, I might consider re-equipping. If I were asked to do it with only one year of security of production left, I doubt whether I would take the risk of spending money on re-equipping. While I understand—

Mr. McCann: Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir D. Glover: I shall not give way to anybody else. I am sorry to be so rough on the hon. Member who is a friend of mine and we get on well together.
It is a big thing for these firms to know when they are to re-equip. I do not think that my right hon. Friend could give a categorical assurance because there is the pretence of interindustry agreements. But I am certain that it would go a long way if the industry could have an assurance from the President that he would try to secure that this sort of figure was the one with which industry would have to deal, not for the next three years but for the next five years. That would increase confidence in the industry with regard to re-equipment.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Greenwood) referred to a mill closing at Haslingden. That sort of thing is going on all the time. If our textile industry

is to compete against modern mills which hon. Members have seen in Hong Kong, in Japan and in other developing countries—where it would seem almost that the cotton flower goes in at one end and a suit of clothes comes out at the other, the whole process going on under one roof—I do not think it is sufficient just to talk about re-equipping. It will mean the redevelopment of the whole industry. I do not think it much use just re-equipping a shed holding about 100 looms and thinking that with it we can compete against a shed in Hong Kong where there may be, perhaps, 5,000 looms. The whole of the structure of our buildings and the siting of them and everything else will have to be tackled in a fundamental fashion if the textile industry is to face the challenge confronting it in the second half of the twentieth century.
I believe that this nation owes a tremendous debt to the textile industry. But for cotton, a great deal of the wealth of Britain would never have been created. Now is the time, I believe, when the nation has to pay some of that debt. I do not think that today we can create a modern industry merely by putting some new looms or spinning machinery into an old shed. The industry needs a new building programme such as was provided for the motor car industry when new and modern buildings were built with aid from the State. That is what is required if the textile industry is ever to be in a position properly to compete.
I must tell my right hon. Friend that I do not consider that with its present set-up the textile industry would be able to compete in Europe if we enter the Common Market, when we should find ourselves undercut by Holland, Italy and other European countries. It is vital to its future that the industry should be modernised so that it may take its share of the growing European market. My right hon. Friend said that there was no limitation on the import of Asiatic textiles into Germany, Holland and Belgium. I think that he mentioned one other country.

Mr. Erroll: I meant from Hong Kong.

Sir D. Glover: If that is so, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich that a great many of the so-called merchant converters in Manchester, who are at present


under-employed, might do a good job of work by exporting Hong Kong textiles to Germany, Holland and Belgium. If these textiles cannot jump the 17½ per cent. tariff barrier they are not as cheap as everyone seems to be making out, and if somebody had the wit and energy to exploit it there is a big market which could be opened up and someone would make money. I am almost sorry that I am tied to the House of Commons because I think that there would be a great future for an operation of that sort.
I hope my right hon. Friend will appreciate that I support the Government and approve of the steps to be taken. But I want a longer period of assurance and some deep thought to be given to this matter. I think that a conference such as has been suggested would be wise. If that happens, I think that a great many of the fundamental problems of the industry could still be overcome. But I do not think that they can be overcome just by putting some new machinery into a lot of old sheds.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The only thing said by the President of the Board of Trade with which I can agree is that there is a long-term policy and a short-term policy.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) thought that the industry would not be sustained on the basis of re-equipment. He thought that new buildings were required. I wonder whether new shelves and machinery is all that he has in mind. The President of the Board of Trade said that only the industry could reorganise itself. That is a basic problem in Lancashire. I am not prepared to see many of the electors of Oldham neglected because of the existence of built-in difficulties in the cotton trade which makes the industry incapable of reorganising itself.
I admit that there may be built-in difficulties in the trade union organisation. But stratification and fragmentation exists in the industry, despite appeals such as those from the President or from hon. Members on either side of the House, and despite the sensible approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) who would ask the Cotton Board to find a

sensible and rational answer. There are built-in deficiencies in the Cotton Board which arise from the built-in difficulties in the industry.
I know that hon. Members opposite will disagree when I say that by their short-term policy the Government have failed the industry. But let us also say frankly that the industry has failed the nation, although there are reasons for that which we need not spend much time discussing. In London yesterday were people with no political background who were worried about the future of their jobs. They know that there are anxieties in the boardrooms and in their trade union branches. They feel that representatives from the boardrooms and the union have been knocking on the proper doors, writing the right kind of letters and seeing the right people, but that in spite of that no progress has been made.
The constituency of the President of the Board of Trade is so near Lancashire that one would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have acted in a different manner. A short time ago the ceiling was lifted beyond what was hardly tolerable when it was accepted by the industry in 1959. I am one who takes pride in the "know-how" of our people. I believe that the industry would be prepared to accept the discipline of reorganisation—we are not arguing about nationalising this vital industry—and that it would probably be a vertical reorganisation.
It is no use the industry having internal quarrels between one sub-contractor and another. Frankly this is Victorian management in an era when the industry is facing the 1970s. The Minister and his Department have been negligent. The industry has a great record and our attitude must be that it has a part to play in the future. Are hon. Members willing to endure a balance of payments problem because of the situation in which the textile industry finds itself?
The people in Lancashire and in the industry do not want synthetic details or precise figures. When the 1959 Act was passed I was not then in the House, but I disagreed with it because it was for political ends and not an Act to deal with the industry. The people of Lancashire accepted even the adverse figures of 1959, but they have said that that is


enough, and that the industry must reequip itself and be prepared to face competition. That is a straightforward proposition.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk suggested that the cotton industry is expendable, and that would appear to be the basic philosophy of the party opposite. Is Hong Kong expendable? I know that it would be impolite and unpolitical for the party opposite to contemplate it. The Prime Minister, a few days ago, talked about this country being an offshore island to Europe. Does anyone deny that Hong Kong is offshore to Communist China? Are we in this House prepared to permit the industry of Lancashire to become so distraught that it cannot even provide 70 per cent. of the home market? Are we prepared to see it sacrificed, not for India and Pakistan, but for Hong Kong, which is not a Colony within the normal meaning of the word?
Everyone knows that Hong Kong is an area of opportunity for finance and merchanting. I believe that this industry can be brought to its feet and given a fair chance. I am not prepared to do less than challenge my county and the industry to pull itself together. The President of the Board of Trade must do his job. I ask for nothing more than that the "hose" should be turned off and that during the next three or four years the industry be given a chance to do its job.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: I hope that it is not a presumption to start by saying that this is essentially a timely debate, in view of what has preceded it. Although I do not often seek the indulgence of the House and am not often able to offer my congratulations to the Opposition it would be ungracious to say that I do not appreciate the fact that they have chosen this topic for debate. Most hon. Members have received a good deal of correspondence about this matter and there has been a good deal of national publicity. The anxiety of those of us who have constituencies in which the cotton industry is still a matter of great significance has emerged during the course of the debate.
I must say at the outset that I am gravely disturbed by the Government's

decision which was explicit and implicit in the announcement made by my right hon. Friend on 6th June. I must say, too, that I am also quite unsatisfied with the terms of the Government's Amendment. I feel with my hon. Friends that the wise words of the Estimates Committee, which have been taken from the Report and used as the basis for the Opposition's Motion, do not go quite far enough. That is why we have sought to make it more explicit and to carry it somewhat further in the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow).
As many aspects of the industry have been discussed already in speeches from both the Front and back benches, I propose to follow the good example set by my right hon. Friend and deal primarily with the question of low-cost, duty-free imports. I hasten to say that this is not the whole problem. It is a complex problem and tribute has been paid to that complexity by my hon. Friends. There is, indeed, a crisis of confidence. There are many other matters on which I should like to speak, but to be brief I will concentrate on this one point—the problem of duty-free, low cost imports. Before doing so I must make one or two general observations.
First, I declare an interest. It may be known to hon. Members, but I think that it would be wise to say that I am associated with a group of companies which, although not recognised as textile companies, have textile interests.
I want also to say to hon. Members who may not be particularly associated with the cotton textile industry that this is a grave crisis for that industry. I hope that hon. Members will not regard this as just another in the series of complaints by the industry which have been brought to the Floor of the House. The industry quite genuinely feels that it is overwhelmed by cheap imports.
I have enough knowledge of, and certainly enough respect for, those whom I have the honour to represent to know that they are not easily whipped up on a purely political basis. Nor are they easily persuaded to travel overnight by coach to London at some expense and a great deal of discomfort and to march through the streets of London and


present themselves in a mass lobby here. There is an element which finds a little exhibitionism to its taste, but I assure the House that this is not just a stunt.
There is genuine concern and anxiety about unemployment. It is easy to bandy figures, and there was some dispute between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I can speak only for by own constituents. We have extensive short time and two mills have already closed down. I put it to hon. Members that if they were in this industry and had been through this sort of thing before, and if they had been at pains to warn their children what might occur if they sought to follow in their footsteps and enter the industry, they would find it of little comfort to be told that the unemployment level in their part of the country was below the national average.
Many of my constituents—and, again, I say that I speak only for them—have been on short time for a long time. When they can see around them a very high demand for labour and when earnings generally are higher in the engineering industry, to quote that which has been mentioned, it is almost more unbearable and almost more difficult to endure short time when one is not quite in and not quite out. Earnings are down and one fears the consequences of the present level of imports, let alone the level which is to be permitted when demand is resumed in the industry in which one works.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am very grateful for what the hon. Member has said about short time, and I agree entirely with him. But he still leaves the impression that short time means only temporary unemployment, not to be included in the main figures. That is not so. The short time goes on all the time, and the only difference between being on short time and being permanently unemployed is that different sets of people are unemployed for shorter periods. But the extent of the unemployment is exactly the same as in the permanent category.

Mr. Leavey: I will not dispute what the hon. Member has said. If he is seeking to offer clarification for the benefit of the House, I will leave it there.
I hope that the House as a whole and hon. Members who may not be particularly intimately concerned with this matter will not swallow the idea that this is an old-fashioned and out-of-date industry, because there is ample evidence—and I do not ask them to accept it entirely from me—that the best in the cotton textile industry in Lancashire today is as good as the best in the world. About the worst I will say only that it ought to have gone out under the redundancy scheme.
On the good side, there has been vast investment, and one can talk of figures in excess of £100 million, money not spent lightly but in the belief and hope that the industry would be brought up to levels of efficiency comparable to those of competitors, efficiency which would produce goods at prices which the British public and the overseas public were willing to pay. The industry has a remarkably good record of industrial relations and can teach some other industries a few lessons about that.
The industry has remarkably good research facilities, to which the industry contributes, and which have made contributions on a worldwide basis—through the Shirley Institute. I pay tribute to the Cotton Board, a statutory body which speaks for and represents the industry, and does so very well. I sense that in recent weeks there has not been absolute accord between the representations made on behalf of the industry by the Cotton Board and those by other bodies. I do not wish to get involved in those differences which I believe to exist. I will say only that those who have adopted more spectacular tactics can at least claim that they have drawn public attention to a difficulty and a series of difficulties and a prospect which deserve public attention.
I want to quote words used in evidence to the Estimates Committee and used in its admirable Report as further evidence of the industry's standing and quality. These are the words of Mr. C. E. Harrison, and I believe that they are compelling evidence that the industry has a very high standing. He said:
Lancashire is well ahead of British industry in work study.
I am sure that any hon. Member concerned with industrial matters will realise the value of and need for work


study. This is not a group of old fuddy-duddies who are out of touch and not willing to face up to new problems. Without labouring the matter too much, I should like to impress on my hon. Friends this image of the Lancashire textile industry, but something else must also he said, for while making criticisms, in a sense, one can claim to be constructive. We are not faultless, but what industry is?
It has been said that we suffer from horizontal organisation. It could also be said that there are merits in horizontal organisation if one is looking for long runs and high employment of highly expensive automatic machinery if one is specialising. But we do suffer from it and there are enormous economies to be made from the vertical organisation. In common with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), I agree that there must be economies at each stage. The industry has moved some distance in that direction, and while it is not easy and there are other difficulties, the lack of vertical organisation in the world as it is is one of the industry's bad marks.
There are also still a few in the industry who adopt the old principle, "When things are going well there is no need to re-equip, and when things are going badly you cannot afford to." There are also those in other industries who take that view, but I confess that there are still some in this industry and we will render the whole industry a service, all who work in it, employers and employees, if we make that plain. That leads me to something else on which I have something critical to say.
I think that the industry is a trifle more reluctant than others to accept criticism and proposals about how it should improve its levels of efficiency, although that may be understandable because a great deal of advice has been thrown at the head of the textile industry over the last few years. But where are we to find industrialists, or any others, who will say that they are unable to meet competition because they are inefficient? That animal has been extinct a long time.
The man or industry—at what level does not matter—who succeeds, claims that it is largely his own acumen, his own energy and his own skill which

have brought him success. Those who fail say that it is the Government's fault. This attitude is becoming more and more widespread. It is linked to the view, which is implicit in what is often said, that if somebody cannot afford something, somebody else must pay for it; there is no question of going without it.
I have touched on a number of points which may have been in doubt in the minds of some of my hon. Friends and also pointed out some of the weaknesses. I turn now to the central problem which was dealt with very fairly by my right hon. Friend. When the Cotton Industry Bill was introduced, the two objectives were clearly understood. There was the redundancy scheme to get surplus plant out of the way. That was followed by proposals for re-equipment with a 5s. in the £ grant from the Government. I welcomed the scheme. I think that everyone recognised its deficiencies.
I have refreshed myself by reading some of the speeches made at the time. I must give the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) credit for consistency, because, as he has reminded us, he said at the time that if he could have found Tellers he would have voted against the Bill. He has consistently taken that view. I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member has said, but I must give him credit for that.
Then followed a fear that there would be a shortage of cloth. Because of the curious structure of the industry, there was some grotesque over-buying or over-ordering. Order books filled. Long deliveries were the order of the day. The industry felt justified in doing this in the sense that it thought that confidence had been re-established. When the scheme was introduced I suggested to my right hon. Friend who was then President of the Board of Trade that, even though it was not stated specifically at the time, there must have been an assumption on all sides that the consumption potential and the production potential were known and would he maintained. When the scheme was introduced the element of confidence, which had to be based on some known or probable set of figures, was stressed.
In moving the Second Reading of the Cotton Industry Bill, my right hon.


Friend the present Minister of Education said this:
The blows have fallen on Lancashire so rapidly and in such continuous succession that it has never seemed possible, as I understand, to pause to take stock and to face all those readjustments which are called for by such drastic changes in the market conditions. Now, at last, an opportunity occurs. The conclusion of an agreed limitation on imports from Hong Kong, and the prospect of a similar limitation on imports from India and Pakistan, create a favourable situation for reorganising the cotton industry on a definite plan …
I submit that the only conclusion is that the scheme for scrapping and the re-equipment scheme which was to follow were based on certain assumptions.
My right hon. Friend said a little later:
I cannot get out of my mind the disastrous effect upon labour and management if we do not create that confidence in the future of cotton which will attract young people to enter the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1959; Vol. 606, cc. 377–8.]
The burden of my case is that it was on the 1959 ceiling figures, which were reluctantly accepted, that the scheme was based and was assumed by all concerned to be based. I hope that no one will split hairs and say that no such statement was committed to paper. The Hong Kong arrangement lapsed twelve months before the Indian and Pakistani arrangements. It was, therefore, necessary to renegotiate the Hong Kong arrangement. The industry is saying justifiably that it has been let down. My complaint is that it was not necessary in the middle of last year to negotiate with Hong Kong increased ceilings which were followed inevitably by demands from India and Pakistan that their ceilings should be likewise increased.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting point in an absorbing speech. He no doubt recognises that Hong Kong, India and Pakistan had restrained themselves during the boom and had seen new suppliers pouring goods into our markets while our cotton industry was fully occupied. Has my hon. Friend got that in mind?

Mr. Leavey: Yes. I assure my hon. Friend that I have it very much in mind. I am sure that it was within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend's advisers

at the time that the reason for this inflated demand was that there had been this grotesque over-ordering and overbuying, for which the industry cannot be blamed.
A false situation existed. The negotiations based on that argument were based on a false premise. The first part of the scheme went quite well. We were waiting for the development of the second part—namely, the re-equipment—on the basis of the ceilings established in 1959.
I remind the House that the ceilings were as follows: for Hong Kong, 164 million square yards; for India, 175 million square yards, and for Pakistan 38 million square yards. Then instead, as we might have expected, of negotiating reduced levels, we had this very substantial increase, an increase of 12 per cent. on the then prevailing ceilings. Up went the Hong Kong, Indian and Pakistani figures. Therefore, we now have ceilings of 422 million square yards against the ceilings of 377 million square yards which we then had.
I remind the House, also, that, while that in itself is a very substantial increase, the increase on the actuals of that previous year is about 27 per cent. This destroyed, and understandably destroyed, the basis on which the Cotton Industry Bill received the support of the House. The Bill was subsequently roundly condemned by some hon. Members opposite in the course of the General Election, but at the time they did not see fit to vote against it. I shall not pursue this point and I shall not embrace all hon. Members opposite in that condemnation, only some of them.

Mr. J. T. Price: I should like to get the record straight. Some hon. Members, including myself, were hostile to the Bill at the time. I agree that we did not vote against it, for the simple reason that every factor had to be considered, including the question of compensation to operatives who would be rendered redundant. That was the only reason why we restrained ourselves. We spoke against it, but we did not register our votes in the Lobby.

Mr. Leavey: I am glad, as the House will be glad, to have the hon. Gentleman's personal statement.
I do not welcome the criticism which has been made on the basis that the Bill was entirely an electoral matter. If it had been seen only in that light, perhaps hon. Members opposite would have been more honourably advised to have voted against it, and then when making the maximum mischief about the Measure during the course of the ensuing General Election they would perhaps have been on better ground.
I was speaking of the quantities and of the impact that these increases have had on the industry. I should like to say here, almost as an aside, that at the time that India, understandably, claimed that she must have her increased share of an increased cake, she was cutting down the negligible export of cotton yarn and certain special cloths from this country to India. Previously, we had exported some quantity of cloth and yarn. It was very much reduced on the ground of India's balance of payments problem. Between 1949 and 1952, the base years, the import quotas were reduced by India to 7½ per cent. of what they had been, and they have since been further reduced until they are now1¼ per cent. of the moderate quotas of the base years.
That makes it very difficult for me and those I represent to welcome and accept with much good grace the claim which was made by India that her quota should rise from 175 million square yards to 195 million and continue at that level for another three years.
As to whether the 3 per cent. increase in the total of our domestic consumption represented by the increase is substantial or not, I would remind the House of the relevant figures, which other countries regard as significant. Mr. Kennedy found himself under some pressure last year from the cotton lobby in America. His reaction was somewhat different from that of my right hon. Friend. He sent representatives to Geneva to negotiate a quite new agreement on the ground that 4 per cent. of domestic consumption in the United States came from imports.
That was enough to justify starting a series of negotiations at Geneva for, on the face of it, a greater acceptance of low-wage, low-cost Asian textiles among the industralised countries. But within a few weeks the United States Government

took action under the agreement to eliminate certain exports from Hong Kong to the United States. That sort of thing makes me and those I represent very suspicious, and in stating that I am using the most moderate language I can find.
There were some things which I welcomed in my right hon. Friend's statement on 6th June. I feel that in criticising his policy and what has been said by him I am less likely to impress him if I avoid altogether recognition of the good points. In the first place, I believe that it is a substantial advance to have introduced the licensing arrangement. I am glad that we are to ratify the long-term Geneva agreement. I also welcome the protocol which says that the United Kingdom will not be required to accept increased quotas. I also welcome the statement that newcomers to this market should not expect to walk freely into the United Kingdom market. I am also glad that we have included in the new agreement the provision about yarn which was previously not ratified.
Finally, I must refer to the Common Market. I feel that we cannot speak on any industrial matter today without making some reference to the Common Market and its impact. The fear exists in Lancashire—and there are good grounds for it—that if and when we join the Common Market the United Kingdom textile industry will not be effectively protected by the common external tariff. The Lord Privy Seal was somewhat "dodgy" on this when the point was raised with him during the Common Market debate a few weeks ago. I do not altogether criticise him for that. Clearly, at this stage in the negotiations it would hardly be possible for him to be very explicit. But it has caused great anxieties, if not suspicions, in my mind.
There is fear that our textile industry will get the worst of both worlds, that we shall no longer enjoy the 17½ per cent. tariff protection which we enjoy on certain imports—that that will be dispensed with—and that at the same time we shall have to face low-cost, duty-free imports from Hong Kong, India and Pakistan.
The French industry has recently made its position clear. It has said what I am sure has been said by many of us in a strictly limited domestic field, "We are


quite ready to welcome you, but we are not all that keen on having your relations." This attitude on the part of the cotton industry on the Continent is qutie understandable. I am not confident that the solutions which my right hon. Friend is seeking to these very complex problems will have sufficient regard to the needs of the cotton industry. I leave it at that.
I conclude by telling my right hon. Friend that I cannot bring myself to feel that the real problem that faces the industry, and the anxieties of Lancashire and the justifiable grounds for those anxieties, are even now understood by my right hon. Friend and the Government. I am very disappointed by the lukewarm, almost meaningless words which the Government have chosen to set down in their Amendment. I feel that the words of the Opposition Motion are more encouraging, taken as they are from the Report of the Estimates Committee, but, as I have already said, my hon. Friends and I think that they do not go far enough. I believe that the addition of certain words—which curiously enough have been used by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne—are necessary.
It is an unusual experience—and I mean this in no offensive way—to find myself in the company of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. I remember the hon. Gentleman once saying that he was glad of support from any quarter. Perhaps I shall not be misunderstood if I almost go as far as to reciprocate that observation. It is unusual for many of us to find the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne wearing a Union Jacket waistcoat and supporting us strongly.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why not?

Mr. Leavey: I was saying that it was unusual—not obscure or wrong, but unusual. The hon. Member has a very active mind, and he should not be too sensitive.
I am gravely disappointed at the reaction of my right hon. Friends to the position in which we find ourselves, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I shall have to reserve my position until he has spoken, and I very much suspect—indeed, I very much fear—that I shall not be able to support him in the Lobby.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: There was nothing in the speech by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) with which I wish to argue. I enjoyed much more his speech on 6th June, when the President of the Board of Trade made his first statement. The speech was much shorter and the result of spontaneous combustion. Today, the fire seemed to have died down.
Since I represent what I think is the largest cotton textile constituency outside Lancashire, I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak. Since I have been a Member of Parliament, in the industrial field cotton has always been my greatest anxiety. During the past few years while we have been indulging in the luxury of a Conservative Government, 14 cotton textile mills in my constituency have closed down. I am always worried about where the next blow is likely to fall. Only last week the managing director of a firm in my constituency told me that at present he was running at a loss because, to keep the factory going, he had been compelled to accept a contract at Hong Kong prices.
Every hon. Member knows that that cannot continue for very long, and if that mill closes down in that part of my constituency, there is no alternative employment. We do not find in the cotton constituencies the glossy factories which we find in the South. In fact, the Board of Trade will not give I.D.Cs. for them. Of course, there are new industries in many of our former cotton mills, and we are grateful to industrialists who have come there and taken them over.
The President of the Board of Trade's statement on television the other night, that all of the 250,000 people who have left the industry have been found alternative employment, is only half-true, because many of the married women who have left have not returned to industry at all. Moreover, as must be known to the Board of Trade, there has been a great migration from the cotton towns into the Midlands and the South. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that this is a social as well as an industrial problem. What chance is there for women in their forties and fifties, who have spent the whole of their working life in the mills, to find alternative employment?
I wonder whether the Minister still thinks that Lancashire was not disappointed when it read his speech of 6th June. Does he think that Lancashire will not be disappointed when it reads what he said today? Personally, I have never known the management and workers in the cotton industry so angry and so frustrated as they are at present, and if the Government have no more to say than the President of the Board of Trade said on 6th June or than he said today, we are wasting our time in having this debate.
What are the Government's views? Is it true, as some have said, that they have written off the cotton industry but for political reasons dare not say so? Does the President of the Board of Trade think that his statement of 6th June or his statement today will overcome the present crisis of confidence? There is only one way to restore confidence, and that is by putting a ceiling on imports. Has the right hon. Gentleman received any other advice, or have any other views been expressed to him from any quarter?
I should like to call attention to the last sentence of the Report of the Estimates Committee and I join with all other hon. Members in expressing my gratitude for the work which the members of that Committee did in producing their Report. The sentence reads:
Nevertheless, they feel bound to record their conviction that, failing a speedy and satisfying solution to the related problems of imports, marketing and the fuller use of plant and machinery, much of the expenditure incurred will have been to no purpose.
These words have been incorporated in the Opposition's Motion. I do not know what hon. Members opposite feel about the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, but I think that it is an insult both to hon. Members and to workers in the cotton industry if the Government expect us to welcome the assurances on imports policy which have been given in their statement.
The concluding sentence of the Estimate Committee's Report refers to "the related problems of imports", on which I will say more in a moment, and to "marketing"—and I will not deal with the latter point, because to be brief I shall limit my remarks to criticisms of the Government and not deal with points which could be put right by

the industry. We have a self-denying ordinance, and we are trying to make short speeches so that as many hon. Members as possible may take part in the debate. I will, therefore, leave that aspect.
The third point made by the Estimates Committee is
the fuller use of plant and machinery",
and that is dependent upon the level of imports. We cannot have plant and machinery working full out on three shifts if imports are at too high a level. Has the President of the Board of Trade received any advice or heard any views expressed other than the fact that unless a ceiling is put upon imports we shall never restore the confidence which the industry lacks? Have not they received that advice from every single body with knowledge of the industry—for example, the British Spinners and Doublers Association, the United Kingdom Textile Manufacturers' Association and the United Textile Factory Workers Association.
Le Syndicat Général de l'Industrie Cotonnière Française regárds Britain as a country which has accepted the destruction of one of its most traditional industries. That, I think, is a measure of the general criticism of the Government. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton objected to someone saying that the Cotton Act, 1959, was a political stunt. Let us leave that there, but was it an attempt to help the industry, or was it an attempt to reduce the industry in size in order to leave the field open for cheap Commonwealh imports, or was it a mixture of both?
If it were to help the industry, then the scheme was based on the then level of imports. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton said that although it was not said in so many words, it was generally understood that there was a distinct connection between the level of imports being received at that time and the reorganisation and re-equipment scheme.
I remember that when we were discussing the Bill I said that unless the voluntary agreement with Hong Kong, India and Pakistan were renewed at the then level of imports at the end of the three-year period, the whole problem would arise again. I think that my words have been proved true. Now the


Government want us to accept a much higher level of imports. The least that the Government can do is to impose the 1959 ceiling to give back to the industry a measure of confidence.
Personally, I am in favour of a much lower figure, and I say that the least that the Government can do is to impose the 1959 ceiling—and I use the word "impose" because I strongly believe that that is the way in which it should be done. Let us have no more of this bargaining either by the two industries or by the Government. I think that the Government have a duty towards the industry, and it is to impose a ceiling.
We all wish to help the underdeveloped countries. Every hon. Member subscribes to the idea that we must do our best to help underdeveloped countries. But who decided that the best way was to murder one of our own industries? It is no good the Government saying that the arrangements must be voluntary because of the Ottawa agreement. That argument is no longer valid, because the Government are prepared to sacrifice Ottawa in order to join the Common Market, and they have made the first inroads into it.
What does the President of the Board of Trade mean when he says that countries with no traditional trade in cotton textiles should not count on being able to build up a new market in Britain? Was he referring to the Commonwealth countries which have recently gained their independence? If so, does that mean that they will not have the same favourable treatment as Hong Kong, India and Pakistan? If he does not mean them but means other countries, are we to expect a flood of imports from the newly-independent countries, such as Nigeria, which are developing their cotton textile industries?
No one can say that the British cotton industry has not done more than its share in helping India, Hong Kong and Pakistan. Must it now be called upon to make still further sacrifices? No one under-estimates the problem of Hong Kong, with its huge mass of Chinese refugees but should the major burden be thrown upon our cotton industry?
We cannot be expected alone to solve the Commonwealth problems and at the same time to solve the Chinese refugee

problem. The time has surely come to put an end to voluntary agreements and to say that generous as we have been in the past, there is a limit beyond which we cannot go and we must fix a ceiling. We are prepared to give quotas up to the 1959 level, but without murdering our own industry we cannot do more than that. That will be the test of the Government's sincerity, for in no other way can confidence be restored. If the Government fail to respond, the industry will know how to judge.
The French Cotton Association was right when it said:
So long as a system of quotas is not adopted by the British, the crisis of the cotton industry in Lancashire will continue.
If we are to have nothing more than the barren statement which has been made on two occasions by the President of the Board of Trade, the outlook for Lancashire is gloomy. I hope that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will have more comforting words to say than have been said before.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: I am glad to have the opportunity of making my contribution this evening, more particularly as I am a Member of the Estimates Committee, a Sub-Committee of which interviewed the various witnesses in connection with the cotton industry. Naturally, I fully support the conclusion reached in the Report of the Sub-Committee, whose conclusion was not arrived at lightly. It refers to imports, marketing and the full use of plant and machinery, or, to put it more bluntly, shift working. The first of those items—imports— is quite outside the control of the industry. The second two—marketing and shift working—are within the control of the industry. I hope in the short time I detain the House to be non-partisan and constructive.
We are talking about a sick industry that genuinely believes, rightly or wrongly, that it has had a raw deal from the Government. After what was said by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 6th June and this afternoon, I do not believe that anybody in the cotton industry will have reason to modify that view.
Having said that I propose to be nonpartisan, it would be as well, to get the record straight, to quote what was said


from the other side of the House on this issue during our debate of 3rd November, 1958. My first quotation is from a speech by the Liberal Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt). I am extremely surprised that none of the Liberal Members has been present this afternoon at a time when the future of a vital industry is being discussed.
During that debate, the hon. Member for Bolton, West said:
I do not think the cotton industry can be saved in any practical or reasonable measure by any Government.… No Government can save cotton, and I do not believe that the Lancashire cotton industry can save itself.
The hon. Member went on to say:
Putting on quotas really will not help
In the same debate, the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), whom I know to be very fair-minded on all these issues, said:
I must say that I very seriously doubt whether this House can do much to help cotton that cotton cannot do to help itself. I doubt very much whether any formula evolved in this House or in the Cabinet could possibly solve Lancashire's problems.…It strikes me as being wrong that there is all this hullabaloo about imports from Hong Kong when, as any school child knows, before Hong Kong sells a yard of cloth someone in the cotton trade here has bought it"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1958 Vol. 594, c. 662–3, 698–9.]
I believe those to be sound and practical words and they are sentiments to which I heartily subscribe.
That debate in 1958 was preceded by a debate in June, 1958, in which I referred to a firm in my constituency which, during the previous ten years, had spent £600,000 of its shareholders' money on re-equipment. That was before the introduction of the Cotton Industry Act. The firm therefore did not spend the taxpayers' money. It spent £600,000 of its shareholders' money.
Last week, that firm was completely shut down and its 400 employees were signing on at the employment exchange. That is one of the reasons why I say that the industry is very sick. There is nothing either in the Opposition Motion or the Government Amendment which denotes something that has been brought out again and again in this debate today; that is, that what the industry wants above anything else is not particularly

money or rules, regulations and quotas. It wants confidence.
Governments can at times be very restricted as to the measure of help which they can give to an industry, but I believe that it is the duty of a Government to try to provide a climate in which industries can help themselves. I therefore suggest that what we have heard so far today from the Government Front Bench has done nothing to engender that confidence in the cotton industry which it so desperately seeks.
I would not wish to go on record as suggesting that the cotton industry is completely blameless and is perfect in all its parts. What might be a good operation would be, as another hon. Member has done earlier in the debate, to go back fifty years and to look at the decline and fall of this great industry.
In 1913, the year before the First World War, production in Lancashire was 8,000 million sq. yds., of which 7,000 sq. yds. was exported. Ninety per cent. of production went for export. In 1957, production had dwindled from 8,000 million to 1,600 million sq. yds., of which 285 million sq. yds., or less than 2 per cent. of Lancashire's production, was exported.
In 1959, when the Cotton Industry Act was introduced, production had dwindled further to 1,300 million sq. yds., and 196 million sq. yds. were exported, which was less than 2 per cent. Last year, 1961, production was at about the same level of 1,600 million sq. yds and exports had gone down to 117 million sq. yds., which was less than 1 per cent. of Lancashire production. That is the size of the problem which is hitting Lancashire at present.
The reasons for these difficulties are not far to seek. There have been marked developments in Europe and Asia so far as those parts of the world are able to produce their own manufactured goods and to export them. As those members of the Estimates Committee quickly discovered during their deliberations, there are very definite marketing deficiencies within the industry and there are very definite design deficiencies about which we have heard this afternoon. As the Opposition Motion, in effect, says, production costs are far too high due to the non-utilisation of Plant and machinery to the maximum extent.
Those of us who are honest will admit that the growth of the textile industry in Europe and in Asia is something which we cannot stop. The Opposition could do no better even if they were in Government from the point of view of stopping development in these various parts of the world. I do not wish to strike a political note and I do not mean this as a political point, but hon. and right hon. Members opposite are committed to spending 1 per cent. of the national income on under-developed countries. I cannot see the slightest sense in spending that amount of money on the under-developed countries to enable them to set up their own industry if at the same time we turn round and say, "Here is the money to produce, but do not expect us to buy What you produce." That is the problem which somehow or other we must try to solve.
As to the fuller use of plant and machinery, some figures have been quoted about the utilisation of looms and spindles, but I should like to refer to the firm in my constituency which I quoted earlier as having spent £600,000 on new equipment. This new plant and machinery in order to pay for itself should be working to its maximum capacity. It ought to be working 168 hours every week to pay for itself in the shortest period of time. If it was in Europe it would most certainly work 120 hours a week. Even if the owners of the plant were lucky enough to get men to work a nightshift the limit to which they would be able to work would be 112½ hours a week, as this is the maximum period laid down at present by the trade unions. But it is more than likely, from experience we have had in this country already, that those machines will run only for about 75 hours weekly. I have quoted these figures from a reliable source.
We have in this country 180,000 ring spindles working three shifts but we have over 4 million still on the old-fashioned one-shift system. We have 16,000 looms on three shifts but we have nearly 100,000 working one shift. I am given to understand that for every 100 hours a German spindle turns, a Lancashire spindle runs for only 66 hours. We know that the Lancashire industry cannot possibly compete with low labour

conditions in Asia, but how can the industry compete with Europe in the face of the facts which I have just outlined?
This explains why European firms can sell cotton textiles in Lancashire, against Lancashire competition, after having paid a 17½ per cent. tariff when the goods come into the country. The blame for this cannot be put on any Government, but the Sub-Committee was left in no doubt that there is very much which the industry can do to help itself.
I propose deliberately to keep my remarks short because I know that many hon. Members are anxious to participate in the debate. What we must endeavour to do, if the industry is to regain its confidence, is not to give the impression that the Cotton Industry Act, 1959 was brought into being in order that money could be handed to the Lancashire textile industry so that it could provide for itself a decent funeral. What we ought to try to get across to people in the industry is that this money was contributed as a shot in the arm to the industry rather than to further its own demise. I am afraid that I have heard nothing this afternoon that could give the industry the encouragement which it is seeking at present.
I have on the Order Paper in my name an Amendment, which you were not able to call this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to add at the end of the Motion:
by affirming that acceptance of future imports from Commonwealth countries based on quantities imported in 1961 is conditional upon future imports not exceeding the proportion to home production which Commonwealth imports in 1959 bore to the estimated production on which the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, was based".
I commend my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to give it the earliest consideration, because I believe it provides him with an escape clause should he care to use it. I do not think that it is being unreasonable to suggest to my right hon. Friend that, whilst the 1961 figures are retained, the imports which are allowed to come into Lancashire shall not be a bigger proportion of home market production than was envisaged in 1959 when the Act came into being.
We are a nation noted for compromise. I look upon this as being a sensible compromise, fair to our Asian and Commonwealth partners and to the


people of Lancashire. I believe that this would give them that shot in the arm and that encouragement which they are so desperately seeking at present.
My position with regard to events which are to take place at ten o'clock tonight is very simple. As a member of the Estimates Committee and also of the Sub-Committee which did most of the work in connection with it, I heartily endorse the Report. Therefore the question whether the Motion on the Order Paper is in the name of the Opposition or in the Government's name does not interest me in the slightest. The fact remains that I shall support the Motion because I believe in every word published in the Estimates Committee's Report. That is, in effect, what the Motion is all about, and that is why I shall have to give it, with pleasure, my support tonight.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) is to be congratulated on the stand that he proposes to take at the end of the debate. It is, of course, for him to make that decision. For myself, I should like to express my appreciation of his work on Sub-Committee F of the Estimates Committee.
Whilst it is in my mind, I should like to express my thanks to the President of the Board of Trade, to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and other hon. Members for their comments on the Report. I had the privilege of serving as the Chairman of that Sub-Committee.
Again, lest I should forget, I should like to place on record the appreciation of my colleagues on that Sub-Committee to the representatives from the Board of Trade who attended its meetings. They were most helpful, and the other witnesses who appeared before us contributed considerably to our discussions. In addition, there were representatives from the Cotton Board. Theirs was a difficult role in that inquiry, but, as Chairman, I was satisfied that their desire was to give of their best in assisting us in our work. The reception which the Report has had has pleased me very much indeed.
I do not want at this stage to refer to the 1959 Act and its implications. That

is well known to the House. All I would like to say now is that the Estimates Committee was satisfied that the terms of the Act and the schemes had been carefully interpreted and efficiently administered. It is the conclusion of the Estimates Committee Report which, I think, has been highlighted. Our Report was short; the inquiry was short, but it was intensive and, if I may say so, the timing of its publication was appropriate. It coincided with the eve of the meeting between the Prime Minister and the 19-man delegation from the Cotton employers and workers, led by Lord Rochdale, Chairman of the Cotton Board. The timing of the issue of the Report could not have been better.
However, not all Reports from Estimates Committees are without recommendations. This was such a Report. There were no recommendations in it, though the conclusion was surely strong enough in itself. It was a direct conclusion and it did not mince words. The conclusion arose from what was said in the course of our inquiries. It became very clear to us that under the re-equipment scheme there was a lack of response in the ordering of new machinery. When the President of the Board of Trade talked this afternoon about reaching £72 million—

Mr. Erroll: About £72 million.

Mr. Randall: —the House must remember that that represents only applications. There is 1964 to come yet, and we may well have an entirely different situation. Much will depend upon whether we can get rid of this crisis which is ahead of us. That will determine whether those applications are going to be picked up.
We in the Estimates Committee wanted to know Why firms were not responding and putting in their applications. We were told that this was due to lack of confidence in the industry and to the import situation. It was on that point that we continued our inquiries. It is perfectly true that for a number of years I represented a cotton constituency, and now I have had the opportunity of sitting in on this inquiry, but I still cannot claim to be an expert in this industry. It is an extremely complicated one.
All the same, I do not think it needs an expert, having read our Report, to


appreciate the inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, namely:
that, failing a speedy and satisfactory solution to the related problems of imports, marketing, and the fuller use of plant and machinery, much of the expenditure incurred will have been to no purpose.
This is one of our oldest and most famous industries. It is in a precarious state. Government assistance to the tune of £30 million was offered, although under the Act £30 million is not necessarily the ceiling, but it was in mind at the time of the Second Reading debate that £30 million would probably be advanced from Government funds. Surely this £30 million was offered in the belief that such expenditure would enable the industry to put its house in order and make itself competitive. I cannot believe that when the Government asked the House to confirm an expenditure of that kind, it was not done in the expectation that the industry would be enabled to become competitive and to put its house in order.
What do we find? On the one hand, £30 million is offered to enable the industry to become competitive. On the other, a level of imports is permitted which, without doubt, prejudices the very survival of the industry. It is a paradoxical situation. In fact, it might even be called a dishonest one. No wonder there is a crisis of confidence in the industry. No wonder full advantage has not been taken of the Government's offer. The cotton industry, above all else, if it is to succeed, must have the basis of a sound home market if it is to survive. The industry rightly feels that the Government could not commit themselves to the tune of £30 million if it was not intended that the industry should survive. Yet experience does not support this view. The high level of imports is allowed to continue and a fair and reasonable home market is denied to the industry.
Considered in isolation, it would seem that the money has been well spent. We were given evidence of modernisation which had taken place. Improvements have resulted in output, lower costs and better working conditions. But this must be set against the whole picture, and one fact emerged quite clearly. All the experts, including the witnesses, were quite unanimous in the belief that British

cotton will never be able to compete with Asiatic imports at their present level.
One witness, Mr. Cartwright, of Barlow and Jones, Ltd., said, as will be seen in answer to Question 471 in the evidence:
… in view of the Government's policy of unrestricted imports from Asia we must face the fact that no matter how efficient we become, we shall never compete with the Asiatic imports.
Colonel Whitehead, the President of the British Spinners' and Doublers' Association, was asked if he thought that we could compete without import restrictions. His answers to Questions 757 and 758 make his view quite clear. He said:
… no, even with the new machines … Because of the wages paid in India, Pakistan and Hong Kong.
In a memorandum which Colonel Whitehead submitted to the Estimates Committee, and which appears on page 128 of the Report, there is this statement:
It was made clear by the industry's representatives … that any scheme of Government assistance and any efforts by the industry itself would be rendered useless, if low-price imports, from whatever source, were not strictly limited;… there was a serious danger that money already spent on modernisation would be thrown away.
Colonel Whitehead is one of the experts in the industry and he gave us that evidence.
What else did we find? We found that, for the first six months of 1961, 36 per cent. of home demand was supplied from imports from abroad, and that the main suppliers were the Asian Commonwealth countries. This must put our industry at a disadvantage, even compared with European, for their markets are not swamped with goods as ours are, and Sir Cuthbert Clegg, of Clegg and Orr Ltd., made the point in this way:
Our continental competitors have had the benefit of insulation from imports and low cost countries and have, therefore, been able to maintain continuous production better than we have.
I could go on quoting from the evidence that was given, but surely it is ludicrous to talk of financial assistance and the present import levels in one and the same breath? It just cannot be done. All the modernisation in the world will never put us on an equal footing with our Asian competitors. Even our ability


to compete with Europe is prejudiced while these present levels remain.
I should like now to say a few words about marketing arrangements. This problem gives further cause for concern. I agree that it is probably largely a matter for the industry, although I am bound to say that as a result of sitting on these inquiries. I consider that this problem cannot be divorced from the question of imports. Marketing appears to be a hit-and-miss affair. In fact, I think that Mr. Harrison put it very well indeed when he said:
The tendency in the past was this. Someone grew some cotton and then looked for a spinner. The spinner did the spinning and then looked round for a weaver, and the weaver wove the cloth and then looked round for a customer.
That may be over-simplifying the situation, but it is largely what is happening in the industry today.
We find ourselves with a market which has been overstocked and even fashion dictates and determines the markets. How many industries can plan an approach to marketing of this order? How many can expect, deserve even, to survive if they carry on in this way? This is why we say in the Report that the industry should make a contribution towards reorganising itself, and I hope very much—and this follows something said by the President of the Board of Trade—that the industry will take note of that part of our Report and set about the task of reorganising itself.
I now come to the question of the fuller utilisation of plant and machinery. This, again, is a matter for the industry, for the employers and the workers. This is extremely important. Such is the cost of the new machinery that if installation is to be worth while, it must be used to the fullest extent, because in any event it is likely to be obsolete in ten years.
To quote Mr. Harrison again, he says, in paragraph 374:
My company in the United States runs a minimum of 120 hours and regularly 144 hours per week, three shift operation, five or six days. We find that the bulk of our continental competitors are running a minimum of 120 hours and many are running in excess of that. In Hong Kong, 144 hours is probably the minimum.
What do we find in this country? In some mills—and, in fact, in the majority—it seems that a single shift is worked for

five days, making a total of 37½ hours per week. In other mills, two shifts are run, making a total of about 75 hours a week. But in a few, a very few, there are three shifts totalling perhaps 112½ hours. Really, no more need be said about this. Obviously, the new installations will not be an economic prospect under such conditions.
It is no good blaming the industry. It is no good saying that it is up to the management or workers to deal with this. The problem again cannot be considered in isolation. The industry realises that shift work is necessary, but, because of the recession in the industry, is having to discontinue shift work. We had evidence that some of the new machines which have been brought in as a result of the re-equipment scheme—25 per cent. of the cost being provided from Government funds—are lying idle, and, therefore, something must be done so that, first, the industry can reorganise itself and, secondly, see that the maximum use is made of the new machinery.
It all comes back to the question of imports. This is the crux of the matter. This is why we said in our Report that if this problem can be solved it will create the confidence which is necessary as a prerequisite to tackling these other problems. We have today had a statement from the President of the Board of Trade. He has taken note of the comments of the Estimates Committee. He appreciates what we had to say. He went on to say that the Government recognise the serious difficulties caused by a large volume of imports. He says that the Government are aware that the industries consider the present level of imports excessive, and yet he goes on to accept the offer to continue the present ceilings until the end of 1965, although, it is true, with some modification with regard to yarn. This is the impossible situation facing the industry.
The industry has been told by the President of the Board of Trade that it has been given much special help, but the industry has a great deal to do. Is the statement of the President of the Board of Trade the Government's considered reply to the Report of the Estimates Committee? The Committee has been praised and been told that it has made a greater contribution than any other made over the past few years.


Is this the considered reply of the President of the Board of Trade to the Committee's Report? Is this the considered and final reply of the Government to an industry which could well be facing extinction?
Perhaps I might make a final quotation from one of the memoranda we received. It says:
What is now needed in Lancashire is full blast production which can only be obtained from higher technical and commercial efficiency based on confidence in the future.
I regard that as one of the most important statements made to the Committee. If the statement of the President of the Board of Trade is the considered view of the Government, all I have to say is that there will be no confidence in the future of this industry in Lancashire, no higher technical and commercial efficiency, certainly no full blast of production, and, if we are not very careful, no cotton industry worthy of the name in this country.

7.18 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) and is indebted to him and to the other hon. Members who formed the Estimates Committee and made such an interesting and constructive Report. I find it difficult to differ with very much of what the hon. Gentleman said today.
Perhaps I might at this stage say a word about my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Bromley-Davenport), who is a constituent of mine. I am sure that the House was sorry to hear about the dastardly act that was perpetrated on him, and will be relieved to know that he is very much better.
I am sure that the House also extends its sympathy to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt), but I am surprised that no other hon. Member of the Liberal Party is present. We are now debating this great industry, which is in trouble, and there has not been a single Liberal Member present. I hope that the country will take note of this, because we read a lot about what the Liberals are going to do, and yet time and again one looks across at the benches opposite and finds that no

Liberals are present, even though there are now seven of them. I am sure that it would have been easy for one of them to be here, if not more.
Having said that, I turn to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. It did not impress me any more than did his statement of 6th June. On that occasion he said that he thought that the cotton industry, when it read his statement, would be well satisfied. I then said that I thought he was wrong, that it would not be satisfied, and subsequent events have shown that I was right. Certainly, the people in my constituency were not satisfied.
I tried hard today to read into my right hon. Friend's speech some encouragement for the industry. I found it lacking. My right hon. Friend has overlooked many revelant problems, for this is an up and down industry. The year 1960 was almost a boom year and in some ways an unfortunate one, because the industry was encouraged to think that those almost boom conditions would go on for ever and large stocks were built up. This was all followed by the trade going right down to its present position. My right hon. Friend has ignored many points, including the seasonal factor. If there is a late spring, for example like this year, the industry can be seriously affected. This sort of thing can set it right back for the whole of the trading year.
The cotton industry is still a great industry. It was a tremendous one in the past and, perhaps, no one would expect, considering the cycle of events, that it should continue at the strength of previous years. Nevertheless, we must have a textile industry, for the country cannot afford to get along without one. I am certain that if things drift on as they are, we may finish up without one and this is most alarming.
The industry must decide just how large it is to be. I would rather have a contracted but healthy, flourishing industry in which everyone knows where they stand rather than the situation we have at present. There needs to be continuity of employment and good sound business. The redundancy scheme and the encouragement being given does anything but that.
The industry considers that it has been misled. Two fine mills in Bollington, in


my constituency, which made probably the finest yarn in the world, have closed down. Material that we were once proud to have has disappeared and many of the people affected live in my constituency. I have received many letters from industrialists and workers and the thing that comes out prominently is the fact that they need confidence. The industry is undoubtedly sick at the present time. It needs bolstering up and as I said privately to my right hon. Friend some time ago—I hope that he will not mind my repeating it—"Can you do something for this industry? Please come to Lancashire and spend some time there. Do not just receive deputations in London, but, with the Minister of State, get among the people in this industry, hear their problems, let them see that you are on their side and tell them that you will do everything you can to help within the framework of Government policy."
One does not like to say certain things to Cabinet Ministers, but I say this with respect to my right hon. Friend, for he is an old friend of mine. We came to the House together about seventeen years ago and he is highly respected in the north of England. He has entered the Cabinet, and, I am sure, will have a great future, but it needs a young man to grapple with these sort of problems—a man who will probably have to take an unorthodox line in many directions.
I recognise that there are pockets of unemployment in some areas—Nelson and Colne and other places—'but if we did not have a general position of full employment the conditions that prevail in the textile trade today would resemble those of 1931. The conditions would be virtually identical, if not worse. It is only because there is relative full employment and the workers, with the exception, perhaps, of married women, are going to other industries and, in many cases, are receiving better conditions and pay, that the terrible difficulties of the industry are not more fully realised.
That does not mean that the textile industry cannot be built up to a high level at which it can give reasonable continuity of employment. The Estimates Committee's Report, as I read it, indicates the failure of the Government's policy regarding the redundancy scheme

and indicates the need for a speedy solution to the import problem.
The closing remarks of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West concerned imports and this is the crux of the problem. It has been said time and again that fuller use must be made of plant and machinery, but it must be remembered that we are at a disadvantage compared with other nations, in which women are allowed to work on night shift. In Britain, they are not and I realise that, despite this, the industry must help itself. Some firms have done this and are as modern as any plant in the world, but not enough have done so. Can one blame them for not following suit at the present time in view of the insecure future that appears before them?
It is unrealistic in present conditions to think of the industry in watertight compartments of cotton, wool and man-made fibres. All these sections are becoming more dependent on each other and it is useless to try to find a solution for one section without considering the other. The industry must be considered as a whole. At present, the main thing missing is confidence. If one wants to raise money in the city in the form of debentures or new capital, one must create a feeling of confidence that one is going in the right direction and that the industry or firm one represents is being built up so that a reasonable return will be received on that money.
That is completely missing in the textile industry. How many hon. Members would be willing to buy textile shares today, if they were making an investment? I suggest that the number, if any, would be very small. Imports of manufactured textiles into the United Kingdom in 1954 were worth £71 million, while in 1961 the figure was £146 million. The amount of cotton piece goods imported in 1961 totalled 731 million square yards, more than 50 per cent. of home production.
It has been said today that when cotton imports into the United States amounted to 6 per cent. of home production there were immediate demands for an inquiry to limit these imports. It is all very well for President Kennedy and his colleagues to tell this country what to do. It has been made repeatedly clear in relation to the size of this country and


its population that we are spending more in the underdeveloped countries than the United States, but despite this, the United States is constantly telling us what we should do and how we should do it. It would be a good thing for the Americans to look after their own affairs. They have plenty of problems in their own country, such as Wall Street, and the world would have a great deal more confidence if they sorted out their own difficulties and did not so much interfere with other things, such as the steel industry. However, I must not dwell on this point, or I will be out of order.
In 1961, there was a great increase in imports of low-priced nylon stockings from Italy. The increase in that year represented the total imports of 1960. Attempts were made to check it and the Government were asked to invoke the anti-dumping legislation, but these attempts were unsuccessful. It seems extraordinary that imports should have come in to that extent and nothing was done about it.
Macclesfield, which I have the honour to represent, used to be known for its high-quality silk and still is to some extent. Silk squares from Japan and Italy are coming into this country in very large quantities and are selling at prices much below the cost of printing them in Britain. I am told that some of the squares are made in Japan, taken to Italy, printed and stamped there and are then sent to this country. Are these things being looked into?
Hong Kong have limited their exports to the United Kingdom and I have considerable sympathy in this connection. After all, they buy £8 to £10 million worth of goods from us, more than we take from them. The same cannot be said of India. Only last week the Indian Government halved their import licences. I realise that they have got themselves into difficulties over their lack of foreign currency, but when Britain handed India over there was a considerable amount of gold in that country and those reserves are certainly not there now. We cannot afford to give the same treatment to India as we have given to Hong Kong, which is a Crown Colony, where we have great responsibilities and where there is a

large refugee problem and other factors to be considered.
Hong Kong has voluntarily limited exports to the United Kingdom, and I think that they are too high, but this has allowed the non-Commonwealth countries to increase their exports to us of equally cheap goods. It has been said that some of these countries have no traditional trade in cotton textiles, and they should not be allowed to get away with it. This is where we look to the Government and the President of the Board of Trade to take action.
Time and time again, evidence is brought to this House of too many eggs coming from Poland when there is an excess in Britain, or of bacon from elsewhere, and four or five months elapse before something is done about it. The Minister has the power, and I should like to see him use it rather more frequently and sooner. If he has not got sufficient legislation to deal with the problem, I am sure that the House would readily give it to him in a matter of days.
Our entry into the Common Market, if it is achieved, will certainly encourage European countries to increase their exports to the United Kingdom. I know that it will be said that we shall have equal opportunity to export to them, but let it be remembered that, at the moment—and regarding the Common Market, I change my mind almost every week; I am swayed by events, and I should like to be more definite than I am—Britain offers a better market for Europe than Europe offers for Britain where textiles are concerned. We should take that into account very seriously.
I wish to refer quite briefly to Japan, which is a serious menace, with its vast production, its low wages, considerably higher than they were, but still comparatively low, and its very long hours of work. People say that the people of Japan are now earning £6 or £7 a week, but they are doing 60 or 70 hours' work a week for it. That is the difference. That, combined with modern techniques, installed under United States supervision, is the main problem for the rest of the world, and it will rapidly increase. Before the war, Japanese fabrics disrupted the home market, and many of us have very unhappy recollections of what happened because of the ridiculously


low prices for their lightweight fabrics of a fairly low quality.
Today, these Japanese fabrics, covering the whole range of Western production, very well designed and extremely well cut, are offered here at prices which make competition quite impossible. I am all for my right hon. Friend going out to Japan and increasing trade, provided that it is evenly spread. He cannot afford to kill the textile industry even to sell motor cars, or whatever it may be. He must look after this industry.
Is it too much to hope that Her Majesty's Government can be persuaded to see that their policies meet the minimum requirements of the United Kingdom industry? I can understand the policy of the liberalisation of trade; I recognise it and think it is a good thing. We all want peace in the world and if we get along better with one another and improve trade, even with Soviet Russia, that will be the better for everybody, provided that irreparable injury is not inflicted on home industries. They will suffer up to a point, but not beyond it. I say that any further liberalisation of trade must exclude textiles and clothing.
On its part, the industry must ensure the full use of plant and machinery, and that can only be brought about by establishing import quotas related to home production, by the introduction of some form of anti-dumping legislation operating more quickly, as well as by the effective use of the present legislation. I say to my right hon. Friend with great respect that he and the Minister of State should go to Lancashire. It is true that the industry must help itself, and I am sure that it is quite capable of doing so, because there is no worthier body of people, whether employers or workers, than those in the textile trade. They are marvellous people, with a record of good labour relations. There is nothing wrong, and, fundamentally, it is a very sound business.
Quite recently, members of the Cotton Board and representatives from the cotton textile industry have been in Europe. They are not dragging their feet, but are examining what the possibilities are for the future. I conclude by saying that unless the Minister of State can make a more convincing speech than did my right hon. Friend this afternoon, for the second time in

seventeen years—although I think that I am a good party man—I shall find it very difficult to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. H. Boardman: We are discussing today a situation which stems from the natural and logical development of one of our greatest industrial achievements.
Over the years, this country has produced and has exported some of the finest textile machinery that has ever been produced, and it has so happened that not only have we exported these fine textile machines but we have also exported highly skilled operatives to teach native labour how to use them. It is not unnatural, therefore, that as the wheels turn these countries are now quite capable of meeting us in competition in the markets of the world, and this is the situation in which we find ourselves.
We have, of course, a very great disadvantage because most of these countries which we are discussing today have a natural ability to produce their goods very much cheaper than the prices at which we can possibly produce them. As a consequence of what has happened and of the inaction of the Government, there has been created industrial despair and political disillusionment which is without precedent in this industry.
Over the years, I thought and believed that the best thing that could happen for the Lancashire cotton industry was to have a planned contraction of that industry because, like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), I have always believed that it would be very much better to have a smaller industry, giving greater security to the people who remained in it, than to have the sort of industry which we have had since the post-war boom, when we see daily the lifeblood of the industry running out. Undoubtedly, the industry has undergone a contraction, but it has not been the sort of planned contraction that many of us had envisaged.
What has happened has been completely crazy and chaotic. It so happens that, because there seems to be nobody who cares about the cotton industry, certainly not in the Government, the industry has been failing to attract the


boys and girls from school to provide it with new blood. Not only that, but some of the people who have spent many years in the cotton industry and have been in it long enough to be greatly skilled have thought that they would get out while the going was good and while they could still get into another job, even such unskilled jobs as bus conductors, school caretakers and what-have-you; at any rate, a job with greater security. The Government must certainly accept some blame in this connection.
The rising imports from the low-cost production countries has struck an enormous blow at the confidence of the people in the industry, both employers and employees. It is this which has been responsible for the failure to attract young workers into the industry and to keep the experienced ones. Some firms have done everything possible for their workers, but we cannot expect a man in the mill, if he sees the writing on the wall, to stay until the place closes its doors, if he sees that there is to be no other job open to him for many years to come, and that is precisely what is happening. In Lancashire today men of 50 and 55 years of age, who have given years of loyalty to the textile industry, are eating their hearts out because they can find nothing worth doing.
Nobody wants to interfere with international trade. What we must do is to work for an intelligent expansion of that trade. The crux of the problem is that we have provided many of our competitors with the tools and the know-how of this great industry, and we must ask ourselves whether we are to allow them now to scuttle the industry which gave them birth.
On many occasions employers and trade unionists in the industry have said that they do not fear fair competition. They are not asking to be coddled, but they point out that they simply cannot compete with a rice-bowl economy. Once we start trying to compete with such an economy we come down, in the end, to seeing who can live on the smallest bowl of rice. That is not much good for either employers or operatives.
Much has been said about the deficiencies of the industry, but it is not a

matter of pouring in money for new capital equipment, or of saying that the industry must make itself efficient. Since 1947 a firm in my constituency has put £1¾ million into new equipment. For fourteen years this firm has been working two shifts a day, and for the last few months three shifts a day in certain departments. It has a very effective deployment of labour because of the use of efficient work study teams. Yet its latest annual report concludes with these words:
The outlook is not good, and gives cause for anxiety.
This firm has done everything. It has re-equipped without Government aid. It has helped its staff. It is using its staff and machinery as effectively as is possible. What do the wags of Whitehall suggest that this firm should do now? There is no point in its taking further action if it has to compete with this flow of low-cost imports from Asia.
One thing has puzzled me for a very long time. This country has sent out to the Far East a high-powered and highly competent delegation to talk to the people in Hong Kong who are selling us this cloth and to discuss how much they should sell to us. I have said before, and I repeat, that not a yard of cloth comes into this country that somebody here has not bought before it arrives. Merchants are making money and are cutting the ground from underneath the feet of the Lancashire cotton manufacturers.

Mr. Dan Jones: Converters.

Mr. Boardman: Yes. Would it not have been much more logical and simple if, instead of sending Lord Rochdale and his very competent delegation to Hong Kong, he had been asked to meet the people in this country who are buying this stuff? Therein lies the trouble. If these people do not trust each other and cannot make arrangements between themselves, the Government ought to discuss the setting up of a central buying agency for these goods.
Some people fear that the industry will be sacrificed for other exports. I hope that that will not be the case. In any case cotton is not the end of the story; it is the beginning. Within the last few days we have all had a circular


from the wool textile delegation. Although the woollen industry has not previously complained, it is now expressing the very fears that Lancashire has been expressing for a very long time. It is cotton today, and if it is wool tomorrow, which industry will be able to speak with confidence about the day after tomorrow?
The Government must make up their mind not merely whether the Lancashire cotton industry is expendable but what we ought to do in order to be able to live with these cheap-cost producing countries, because their ability to produce cheaply will increase, and the problem will become increasingly serious. The Government have been telling Lancashire what it should do for long enough; it is now Lancashire's turn to tell the Government what to do. The people of Lancashire are telling the Government, "If you cannot or will not help Lancashire to help itself, for God's sake get out and make room for a Government that can."

7.46 p.m.

Sir Alexander Spearman: I believe that I am the first speaker to take part in the debate who does not represent a cotton constituency. I do so with the more diffidence because everyone who has spoken knows a great deal more about cotton than I do. That would not be difficult. I am glad that the debate has not been confined entirely to Lancashire. This is a very grave issue, and the proposals put forward can affect not merely Lancashire but the whole country. I may come out of this debate a little battered. I cannot expect from hon. Members opposite the easy ride that some of my hon. Friends have had, because I shall take a different line.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that the cotton industry, which is a vary great one, and which has rendered so much help to the country in the past, will decline very severely unless it is further subsidised or protected. I want to examine, not in a defiant but in an inquiring spirit, what sort of case can be put forward for further subsidy or protection. First, there is the question of our policy of helping the underdeveloped and poorer areas of the world. It is widely agreed Chat, wherever possible, this is far better

done by trade than by aid. It is more efficient, more self-respecting, and it costs the taxpayer a great deal less.
The Guardian, which might be called the local paper of the cotton industry, and has frequently Championed it in the past, said, on 7th June:
To give special protection to the cotton industry would hurt Britain more than it could help the industry, to say nothing of being a wounding blow at the economic and social development of parts of the Commonwealth that need to raise living standards.
Next, I should like to know whether in this industry we are making the best use of our very scarce manpower resources. Unlike many other European countries, we have not great reserves of labour to call upon. A highly developed and industrialised country like ours cannot hope to compete in the production of simple and straightforward goods—for example, cotton cloths, on which so much of the industry was based in the past. It must surely depend on concentrating its resources on the more complicated and sophisticated products, those which require the maximum technical skill, the highest ratio of capital to labour and the greatest extension of research.
Lancashire used to have two assets which gave it a tremendous natural protection—the terrific inherent skill of its labour and its climate which, perhaps, is not entirely ideal from an amenity point of view, but is most favourable to the cotton industry. Now, automatic machinery has entirely and, perhaps, sadly, displaced the craftsmanship which was so unique to Lancashire, and the fact that air conditioning can be installed anywhere in the world means that Lancashire no longer has its former climatic advantage.
Has the industry sufficiently adapted itself to these changing circumstances? I observe from the White Paper that between 1912 and 1958 exports fell from 7,000 million yards to 455 million yards—to less than 7 per cent Has this been entirely due to circumstances outside the industry's control, or has not it been as efficient as it could have been? Has there been, perhaps, a failure to integrate production so that one factory spun, wove, dyed and finished the goods rather than that they went from one factory to another? Can it be that the industry has not spent enough on research and


modernisation? Are enough shifts being worked?
The International Federation of Cotton and Allied Textiles Industries publishes a six-monthly bulletin in which the following comparisons for the first half of 1961 are given. The United Kingdom figure of 49 hours per week per spindle worked is the lowest in all Europe and reflects the relatively small extent of shift-working in this country. The United Kingdom figure of yarn production per spindle per week is the lowest in Europe. The figures for the E.E.C. countries are between two and three times greater than ours. With 25 per cent. fewer looms than we have, Germany produces 16 per cent. more cloth. Although shift working is more extensive in weaving than in spinning, the United Kingdom figure of 57 hours worked per loom per week is lower than that of any other country except Portugal. Only Spain and Portugal have a worse performance than the United Kingdom in production per loom per week.
If we go into the Common Market, as I very much hope we shall, our textile manufacturers will have the opportunity of competing on level terms with the very large and, I believe, very prosperous textile manufacturers on the Continent. I know quite well that the best mills in this country have adopted methods similar to those adopted on the Continent and have obtained results comparable with the very best achieved there. But cannot the industry as a whole become economic on its own? Those of us who are asked to support further measures of protection wonder why it is that the whole industry cannot do what parts of it have done.

Mr. McCann: The tragedy is that some of the most modern mills are closing down.

Sir A. Spearman: I do not propose to discuss the details of the matter. As I have said, I have not the advantage of having the detailed knowledge of hon. Members opposite who know this industry so intimately. Also, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is getting very impatient.
Cannot the industry as a whole become economic? If it cannot, is it really in the

interests of the country to bolster it up? In the inter-war years, I should have said unquestionably "Yes", because surely it is much better to employ people, however uneconomical it may be, than not to employ them at all. The expansion of industry generally in Lancashire shows that there is a net gain in the employment available. That emerges clearly from a Written Reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Stanley) on 23rd May.
Of course, there may be exceptional pockets of unemployment, but, taken as a whole, Lancashire is not facing tragic unemployment but the need is for people to change jobs. However, I realise that there is harshness in that, and I am not satisfied that the Government are taking every possible step to retrain men and to facilitate the change-over of jobs. If we were in the position which we were in at the beginning of the century, it might well be that we could afford this indulgence and bolster up the industry not merely to provide people with jobs, but to keep them in the same job.
But today surely we all realise that if we are to maintain, let alone increase, our standard of living, we must get more growth into the economy. What makes growth? I diffidently suggest that hon. Members opposite sometimes think that it is something which a clever, enterprising Government should be able to conjure out of the skies. Of course, investment is vital to growth, and the Government can influence investment in various ways. However, the part which investment plays in growth is very much exaggerated. Let me give one example. Industrial investment other than housing has doubled in the last ten years and the growth has increased from about 2½ to 3½ per cent. I am sure that a dramatic way in which we could get greater growth on a vast scale quickly would be by working more shifts, getting rid of restrictive practices, whether on one side of industry or the other—

Mr. S. Silverman: How can men work more shifts in a factory which is closed?

Sir A. Spearman: I am talking about growth in the economy as a whole and saying that, although it happens in some industries in this country, we are not working as many shifts in industry as a whole as are worked abroad.
Secondly, we need more mobility of skilled labour and investment, not to maximise production and employment, as employers always tend to do when it is very easy to sell, but to minimise costs. If we are to have growth, we must drive resources into the most economic industries. I accept that one cannot be doctrinaire about this. Where there is acute local distress, measures must be taken to mitigate it.
But do not let us deceive ourselves. When we bolster up declining industries, inevitably we slow down growth. We cannot have the cake and eat it. We must not play a game of pretence that growth is all important and we shall get it when we support sectional interests. Measures which damage the economy as a whole in the long run often hurt those interests which they are designed to help. I should want more evidence than we have had today that the people engaged in this industry are suffering severe hardship which they cannot avoid before I supported plans to give them more protection.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I am not an expert on this industry, but I am privileged to take part in this debate because a number of my constituents are involved in the industry and that, I feel, may be an even greater justification for my taking part than being a so-called expert.
I listened to the Minister giving his figures. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman would claim to be an expert, but I think that he has whitewashed the situation. I do not propose to repeat a lot of figures. I support those which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) which, I think, crystallise the situation.
It ought to be emphasised that the textile industry has made a monumental contribution to the economy of this country through the years. At one time the output from the Lancashire textile industry supplied the needs of the whole world. Today, despite an increase in world demand, we find that the industry is on its knees. If the help now promised by the Government is to be regarded as a yardstick with which to judge the future of the industry, I say with dismay

that it will not be long before the industry is on its face.
There are those of us who attack the Government without apology because we feel that they have let down the industry. I am firmly of the opinion that a far greater measure of help could be given to the textile industry and for several good reasons the industry has a right to expect such help. Not least of those reasons is the one given by the President of the Board of Trade in 1959 when he said:
I am convinced that the reorganisation scheme is going to give a new lease of life to Lancashire industry. There is without question a feeling of more security and confidence that better times are ahead.
I referred to those words during a debate on the cotton and textile industry in the House on 16th March, 1962. There is no question of qualifying the terms. The words used by the Minister are clear. Employers and people working in the industry accepted them at their face value, and there are employers, whose families have been connected with the industry for 150 years, who poured hundreds of thousands of pounds into the industry.
I do not wish to overstate the case, but in some instances millions of pounds were put into the industry. Today, those people face bankruptcy. I have spoken to some of them who will be in need of psychiatric treatment unless something is done, so great an impact has this made upon their nervous condition. That is not surprising because if you show me a man who, having lost almost his all, can accept it with detachment, I will show you a fool. These people are not fools. They have served this country well in the past and they desire to continue to serve.
Following these promises there was a period of contraction in the industry. I do not think that any other industry in the country has had to accept measures similar to those imposed on the textile industry. There was a contraction and there was redundancy. New techniques were introduced. But still there was no question but that the industry would co-operate 100 per cent. Despite that, we now face a situation where, with these promises still in mind, after the expenditure of hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of pounds, and after wholesale


co-operation from the trade unions, the textile industry is on its knees and employers and workers find themselves in a dire position.
What can be done? The Minister, who would claim to be an expert in these matters, has referred to an increase in imports of only 3 per cent. since 1959. I detected a sense of detachment, even complacency, about that statement; as if 3 per cent. was nothing much. I have here a statement by the employers who say that cloth imports into this country in 1959 equalled 370 million sq. yds. In 1961, the figure was 520 million sq. yds. The statement adds;
These are for retention in the home market. These figures represent approximately 40 per cent. of the total consumption of cotton textiles in the whole of Great Britain. No single industry can stand up to such unfair and withering competition and as a result two-thirds of our cotton mills have closed down since the war and over 250,000 people have left the industry to seek employment elsewhere.
The employers could have added that some of those people are still looking in vain for employment. That is what must be recognised by the House.
If I speak with a sense of indignation about this parlous state of affairs, it is because I, too, have been unemployed. I should like hon. Members opposite, who speak with a sense of detachment about being unemployed, to be unemployed themselves for a period and be obliged to live on what they receive. I warrant that then their attitude to unemployment would take a revolutionary turn. It is inhuman, and I shall never cease to protest about it as long as I am priviledged to come to this revered Chamber. How dare people speak of the unemployed as though they were units which might be dispensed with?
What can be done to assist the textile industry? I support the Motion. We should go back to the 1959 level of imports. The authority for that figure is the Estimates Committee which analysed the industry. I am not an expert, but the members of this Committee are. The Committee stated:
The purpose behind the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, is clear enough. It was intended so to promote the modernisation and efficiency of the industry as to render it competitive both in the home and in the export markets. To

this end large sums of money have been voted by Parliament, and your Committee are satisfied that the expenditure has been applied in the manner intended by Parliament. It is no part of the duty of your Committee to comment upon the policy which underlies the Act. Nevertheless, they feel bound to record their conviction that, failing a speedy and satisfactory solution to the related problems of imports, marketing, and the fuller use of the plant and machinery, much of the expenditure incurred will have been to no purpose.
We set up a body of this description and then ignored the recommendations that it made. I believe that they are wise men. The country owes a debt of gratitude to them and the Government should pay a similar salutation to them by honouring the recommendations they make.
I would add that bulk buying should be instituted. This was something that was set up by the Labour Government in 1945–51 so that the raw materials could be sold to the industry without people making very good profits and not making a good contribution to the industry. I believe that that could be done and that it should be done. I believe, also, that all the cotton textile goods sold in this country should be stamped with the name of the country of manufacture. I am convinced that, whatever the House does about this tonight, the British public will not willingly contribute to a situation which means economic sacrifices in Lancashire.
When talking about the development of the Commonwealth—and I do not object to that as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—why cannot we develop a greater diversification in the economy of Commonwealth countries so that the impact of their exports will not have such a great effect on one industry but will be shared? Why has it to be on only one industry in one section of our nation?
Why is it that we are not prepared to ban imports from other than Commonwealth countries? I ask that question with some intensity of feeling. What do we owe to Spain and to Portugal? I am prepared to admit that imports from each of those countries may be comparatively infinitesimal, but in the aggregate they are substantial. Why do we allow these countries to send their imports to us and thus menace the economic existence of a part of the nation which has served our country so well in the past?
Finally, let me come to the human problem associated with this industry. I do not apologise for doing so. Unless we can relate these figures to the human problem, I think that the House has missed the point. I spoke yesterday to men of 50 to 60 years of age who know perfectly well that in the next year or two they will be redundant. They have served the industry well and are good technicians. Many of them know that there is very little chance of their securing alternative work.
I have already spoken about the employer and the horrible possibility of his facing bankruptcy, as a good many employers will. Let me speak about the Lancashire girl. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I think that she is a very charming girl. Much more than being charming, one of them said to me, "Tell me, Mr. Jones, why the Government seem to perpetuate the system in which the debutante in society is not only patronised, but put on a shelf for the adulation of the people, and we, by contrast, are in the industrial gutter?" I have not the answer to that.
What I do say is let the Government beware. This knowledge will percolate more and more to the people of the nation. The Lancashire lass is a fine economic unit and of real value to the nation. The debutante does not produce a "ruddy" carrot from January to December. I tell the Government that, whatever happens tonight, I shall, in the interests of the people whom I am proud to represent, hound and harry the Government on this question so long as I am privileged to come to this House and a situation is maintained in which this industry is denied the elementary justice that other industries get.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I have listened to almost the whole of the debate, and I feel that it has had two notable and wholly desirable characteristics which can do nothing but good. The first was the readiness on the part of nearly everyone who has spoken to admit that it is necessary for all parties concerned in this problem to play their part. It is not a matter just for the Government alone. It is not a matter just for the industry alone. If we are to find a solution to the problem, it has to be one which somehow harnesses and

combines the efforts of the Government, management and labour.
I believe that it is of tremendous importance that everyone who is concerned to find a solution should adopt that approach to the problem. The one hope must lie in everybody playing his part and in the restoration of a spirit of co-operation and confidence to take the place of the present bitterness, which undoubtedly exists, and which could very easily lead to deadlock and therefore to nothing but detriment for everyone concerned.
The second notable characteristic has been the numerous efforts which have been made to get rid of some of the immense confusion with which this problem is almost completely bedevilled. I listened with great interest and pleasure to those hon. Members who have done a good deal to remove some of the confusion by drawing so clearly the distinction between imports from low-cost countries and imports which come in over a tariff. As the industry freely concedes, it is not the imports that come in over a tariff with which it is concerned. The industry accepts that it must compete with those. What it is concerned about are the imports from the low-cost countries. This debate may have served a useful purpose in drawing that distinction. I am sorry that I did not have a chance to say my next sentence before the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) left the Chamber, for I think he may perhaps, unwittingly of course, have introduced a note of confusion.
My recollection is that he compared two figures which were not comparable, one of £377 million in 1959 and then one—he was quoting from a letter—that imports had increased to £525 million. The figure of £377 million was the ceiling in 1959 for Hong Kong, Pakistan and India and not the actual. One of the important things in considering the subject is to consider the actuals as well as the ceilings. The figure of £525 million was not the figure to which the £377 million increased but the total imports from all sources in that same year.
I think that the hon. Member for Burnley was quoting from a letter and such confusion, if any, as there was was


quite unintentional, but I mention it because it is comparisons of figures like that which are perhaps not comparable which in so many instances have created confusion and obscured the problem. The problem of imports is that of imports from low-cost countries. Of course, those are of tremendous importance and significance, and any increase is to be regretted, but the Government, the industry and the House must see the present increase in its proper perspective. I find it difficult to accept that the current increase over the 1959 ceiling, which is a difference of 3 per cent. in total consumption—

Mr. McCann: I rise to refer to the continued use of this figure of 3 per cent. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) is doing exactly what he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. D. Jones) of doing—comparing figures which have no relation. When the President of the Board of Trade said earlier that the increase was 3 per cent. of home consumption, or only 45 million square yards, he forgot to equate that to the complete production of perhaps fifteen modern mills, which means the closing down of fifteen mills in addition to those which have already closed. That is what happens from this "only 3 per cent.".

Mr. Percival: The hon. Member may not agree with me, but he may rest assured that I shall not add to any confusion. The increase in the ceiling is 45 million square yards. I have conceded that any increase is undesirable, but there having been an increase it is necessary, in order to see the whole problem in its proper perspective, to see what relationship that increase bears to total consumption, and in fact it is 3 per cent. of total home consumption. Therefore, it makes a difference of 3 per cent. and about that we are all agreed and, as I say, I concede that we would be better off without any increase. But, as there has been some increase, let us see it in its proper perspective. The maximum possible increase over the 1959 ceilings is the equivalent of 3 per cent. of total home consumption, and that is a fact which one cannot escape. Undesirable as that is, I find it difficult to believe that this is by itself what it is so often made out to be—a body blow to the industry.

Mr. H. Hynd: It is on top of the other increases.

Mr. Percival: It is regularly being said that 1959 would be all right, and I am taking my increase against the 1959 figure. Practically the whole of the industry is saying, "If only we could have 1959, we should be all right". This is an increase against 1959. I would have thought that it was overstating the case and being over-dismal—and we do not do anybody any service by being over-dismal or overstating the case—to regard that as a body blow to the industry. I would have thought that when that increase was seen in its proper perspective, in which I have tried to put it, and against the advantages of a 3½-year period, plus the inclusion of yarn as a restricted commodity, the disadvantages of the new agreements were perhaps being slightly exaggerated and the advantages somewhat overlooked.
To that extent my right hon. Friend is, I feel, to be congratulated on what he has done, and it is wrong for the industry to say that he has done nothing to achieve any advantage for the industry. But from then onwards I part company from my right hon. Friend, and I do so on three principal issues. I think, with respect, that he has under-estimated the confusion which has been caused by the highly artificial situation which has existed in the industry during the past three years and which has gone far to bedevil what was a very worthy plan which at first had a very fair chance of doing just what it was intended to do—giving confidence and stability to the industry.
That artificial situation has arisen because, just as the plan was getting under way, the merchants apparently had a fit of midsummer madness and over-ordered, not only at home but all round the world, thus creating a highly artificial and most misleading situation and bringing about the direct consequence that we were choked with stocks. That, followed by two bad years, which at least had the effect that the stocks were not depleted as fast as they would otherwise have been, coupled with the rise in imports over the tariff barriers which occurred in 1960 and 1961, created a situation which nobody had anticipated when seeking to put this new plan into operation. It created a


highly artificial situation of great confusion the effects of which have not worked themselves out of the system and which will take a little longer to work out of the system.
Secondly, I think that my right hon. Friend under-estimates the problems facing the industry. I have already said that one of the things I have been so pleased to hear is the almost universal acceptance of the fact that the industry must play its part. We in Lancashire fully accept and recognise that, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend recognises quite how great our difficulties are. It is all very well to talk about verticalisation. Some concerns have gone a long way along that road. Others are going along the road, but it is not something which is achieved overnight. It needs planning, capital and time. When we talk about re-equipping with machines, we are not talking about putting in little electric motors or things costing £100. We are talking about putting in machines which may cost £6,000 and upwards apiece. We are also living in an era of rapid technological change. Who knows what machines are just around the corner? We cannot be sure that any machines we buy now will be the best to serve us for the next ten years. We must choose with care.
The industry has another quite different job to tackle. I have already referred to what I call the artificial situation created largely by the excessive ordering of the merchants. It may well be that the industry will feel that the time has come when the complete split between merchanting and production should be attended to. It cannot be attended to overnight. It will take time. Unhappily there appears to be not merely a complete lack of co-operation. It goes much further than that. This must be broken down. One hon. Member opposite referred to other inbuilt difficulties. All told, there are great problems indeed.
I believe sincerely, otherwise I should not be taking up the time of the House, that the industry genuinely wants to meet the problems and overcome them and is willing to make its full contribution. If it is to have a fair chance of doing so, it needs two things, a little more time and a lot more confidence. As to the former, since time is short now,

I will merely say that I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who suggested that a minimum period of five years' stability is a not unreasonable request. I have conceded, as it is only fair to concede, that stability on low-cost imports, which is the one thing that matters, for three and a half years is an advance, but it is not a big enough advance. It will take longer than that to solve the kind of problems which the industry must tackle.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk in asking the Government to give serious consideration to the question whether they cannot now come straight out and say, "We will do everything we can to give you stability and ensure that the present position does not deteriorate further for five years". This is one of the things which appears to be sapping confidence more than anything else. I do not think it is the 45 million square yards or the 3 per cent. in itself. It is the fact that there has been an increase and the fear that, there having been one increase, there may be another one soon and another after that. There is the fear that the doors may be opened time and time again. It seems to me that it is reasonable for the industry to ask for a guaranteed five years and to say, "You can see the size of our problems. They cannot be overcome in two or even three years. Give us time". If that were done, it would give the industry a far better chance to make its plans and solve its problems.
It would also go a long way towards meeting the second requirement which I mentioned, that is to say, the necessity for more confidence. If we did that it would be the first step in the right direction and it would give more confidence to the industry. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). The lack of confidence which is felt by people in the industry must not be underestimated. It is the very heart and soul of the matter. Nothing useful will be done until some degree of confidence is restored. This is the last point on which I part company from my right hon. Friend. I think he has underestimated the lack of confidence. I think that he does not appreciate, as those of us who serve this part of the country


do, the real bitterness that there is. It is not bitterness just from a few. It is not bitterness from the kind of people who are always crying out for someone else to do things for them.
It has already been acknowledged in the debate that the best of our industry are equal to the best in the world in their management, their organisation and their labour force. I am happy to pay tribute to all three, because it is merited. But even among the best in the industry, who are equal to the best in the world, this bitterness and lack of confidence is now felt. These people are experienced, many have spent a lifetime in the industry. They are very reasonable. They are not heathens from north of Cambridge who get excited at the first sign of difficulties. They are phlegmatic people Who know their job, like it and get on with it and do not get bitter like this unless there is a good reason for it.
I can mention my personal experience in support of my statement that they are not people who complain the moment anything goes wrong. Until recently, I never had a letter of complaint from any of the many mill owners and executives who live in my constituency.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There is a good number.

Mr. Percival: It is an excellent number. They have not come complaining to me about little or great matters. They have been getting on with things themselves. I have had to go to them to get what information I wanted. They have gone into their re-equipment and so on in great detail and have put in a great deal of their own money and have got on with their own problems. But now even they feel this bitterness and lack of confidence.
I do not pretend to know exactly why it is or whose fault it is. The worst thing that could happen would be for there to be endless recrimination. To find a solution we must stop recriminating and start co-operating. The fact is that I do not really care much why it is or whose fault it is. That is not important. What is important is to get rid of the feeling somehow. I believe that we can get rid of it if we recognise

a little more the difficulties and problems of the industry instead of just telling it that that is its own business and that it must get on with it, and if we say we will give it a little more stability for, say, five years, which would not be unreasonable. The Government ought now to say "Here is an earnest of good faith. Let us now stop backbiting and recriminating, and co-operate and get on with it." The Government might well say that a little more clearly and, perhaps even more important, a little more warmly than was done in my right hon. Friend's speech today.
For these reasons and because I feel obliged to part company from my right hon. Friend on those matters which I consider go to the heart of the problem, I am unable to accept my right hon. Friend's approach to the problem as it appears from his statement on 6th June and his speech today—namely, that he has done all he can do and all he proposes to do, and now the industry must get on with it. I believe that my right hon. Friend can do more and that he should show a willingness to do more and at least a willingness to try to find further and better ways of making a contribution to solving the problem. I feel that if only he would do this and set a lead he would find that the people of Lancashire would respond generously to such leadership.
I therefore feel obliged to adopt the same position as has previously been indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, and to reserve my position until the end of this debate in the hope that there may yet be some glimmer of hope that the Government do propose to do something more, but with the feeling that I, too, regrettably, will be unable to support my right hon. Friend.

8.41 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), and I was very disappointed with his concluding words. I thought that he had heard enough evidence already from the Government, repeated by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon, to enable him to make up his mind now which side of the argument he is on, and I can assure him that


the only thing which will register in Lancashire as a result of the debate is votes.
It is no good saying that back-biting will get us nowhere. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that general speeches of sympathy with Lancashire will get us nowhere, either. The only thing which will get us somewhere in the succession of debates which we have had on the problems of the cotton industry is if hon. Members opposite who know what the situation is in Lancashire have the courage of their knowledge and vote with the Opposition for this Motion.
I am sure that the Government have had very little consolation from the succession of back-bench speeches which have been made on their own side. Some hon. Members have already had the courage to say outright that they will go into the Division Lobby with us tonight. Others are still wavering. But there has hardly been an hon. Member from the Government back benches who has failed substantially to support the case which lies behind the Opposition Motion.

Mr. S. Silverman: My hon. Friend is being unjust to one hon. Member—the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman), who supported the Government fully. He was the only one who did, and he began his speech by saying, first, that he knew nothing about the industry and, secondly, that he had no constituency interest.

Mrs. Castle: If I had had time and it had not been so late in the debate I intended to deal with the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman), but I must leave him in peace in his little backwater and get on to more important things.
A speech which gave us one of the key-notes to the debate was that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey). He said something which struck us all as being the kernel of this affair. He said that "this country has got to have a textile industry". That is the central issue which we are discussing, and I want to say "Hear, hear" to that remark not merely as a Lancashire M.P. with a constituency interest and not merely because a local cotton representative at the beginning of the debate sent

me these three red roses from Lancashire to wear—I know that they are wilting a little under their disappointment at the President's speech, but they started in good heart and it was a very effective gesture.
But it is not only from a constituency point of view that I state that this country must have a textile industry. I say it as a consumer—and this is a point which has not been put tonight. It was put to me rather aptly just before I came into the Chamber by the person who gave me the red roses. She has been in the Lancashire textile industry all her working life, and she brought me this piece of cloth which she obtained today in Gillingham High Street. It was being sold in this shop in Gillingham High Street under the heading, "Special shipment of Eastern cotton, 5s. a yard." It is no longer a question of trying to sell this stuff under a British label; it is being openly sold as Eastern cotton.
It is pretty, gay and charming stuff, and I do not for a moment deny that it has its place in the cotton consumption of this country. But when I look into it as a consumer I find that it is rubbishy stuff compared with that which Lancashire can produce, and at 5s. a yard it is not a cheap import at all; it is an expensive import, and it is not worth the cost of making it up.
It is not worth all the cost of distribution and retailing, because it does not have the value that most women would want in a cotton garment. It does not begin to compare with the quality of the cotton which I am wearing. Within a matter of days it would look like a piece of old rag.
This is of importance to women. Although I agree that this cotton can have a place in the total consumption, its place is not to crowd out the high-quality home-produced material. The tragedy is that owing to the total lack of planning on the importing and merchanting side of the industry, this kind of stuff is having a disproportionately disruptive effect.
We are now in the middle of the paradox that the Lancashire cotton industry is being destroyed by goods which are not even competitive. It is not a question even simply of unfair competition. It is not a question of competition at the manufacturing level at all taking


value for value, quality for quality, wear for wear or price for price. It is not that our manufacturers and operatives are failing to produce value for money. In a large number of cases, British women would not choose to give priority to this cheap material.
What we are suffering from in the industry is the short-sighted get-rich-quick merchant. It is not that the manufacturers and the operatives are being outwitted by better or cheaper producers overseas. They are being outwitted by a powerful independent merchanting section which is guided by one criterion, that of buying in the cheapest market, even when it is not the best one.
When I say that I want control of imports, I mean that I want control of the merchanting section of the industry. That is the loophole through which the protective measures fail. That is the only way in which we can solve what is undoubtedly a challenging problem and reconcile the conflicting interests involved.
We are today discussing one aspect of the biggest problem in the world. We all know that world trade cannot expand unless we take a rising level of exports from the developing countries. We all know that it is nonsense to imagine that we can have freedom-from-hunger campaigns, gifts for refugees, grants and loans and imagine that that will meet the problem. To give aid without trade is to expect the under-developed areas of the world to be the perpetual remittance men of the West.
This is Lancashire's sole case, and we object to being called the benighted and reactionary element of the community when we put it, Why should Lancashire be selected to be the solitary vestal virgin on the altar of this country's responsibility to the under-developed areas? We try to bring the inescapable facts before the House. No other industry in the country is expected to make this contribution to underwriting the trade of under-developed areas, and there is no other country in the Western world which is even beginning to make such a contribution as ours.
Let us pay tribute to what Lancashire is doing now towards helping the trade of the under-developed areas. The latest figures which I have been able to obtain

from the research department of the Library go back to 1960. They show that in 1960 Asian imports of cotton textiles, including imports from Japan, into this country amounted to over 32 per cent. of our domestic production. The equivalent figure for the United States was 2·6 per cent. Other figures were Belgium 1 per cent., Western Germany 1·2 per cent., Italy 0·2 per cent., and France nil. In 1960, according to my information, France was not importing a single yard of cloth from Asia, including Japan, yet she is a member of the G.A.T.T. Ministerial conference which solemnly placed on record its recommendation to every member to assimilate a fair share of exports from these countries.
It will not do for the President of the Board of Trade to ask, "What is 3 per cent. for Lancashire?" What about starting to put 3 per cent. on top of nil instead of on top of our 32 per cent.? This is Lancashire's argument. It is no good the hon. Member for Scar-borough and Whitby asking us how it is that Lancashire is less efficient than European countries and how we cannot compete with them. My answer is that he must ask the question, "Which comes first, security or efficiency?" Not one of the countries which are so efficient in the hon. Member's estimation dares expose its industry to the challenge which industry in Lancashire is having to face.
We are, therefore, tired of being lectured about the need for Lancashire to accept the facts of world development, and we are getting a little tired of the unctuous references of the President of the Board of Trade to our obligations to the Commonwealth. Never let us forget that it is the present Government who have given away the principle of the free entry of Commonwealth goods. They have done it in the voluntary limitation arrangements and, above all, in the negotiations to enter the Common Market. They are selling that principle down the river. My complaint is that the Government have done the maximum psychological damage to the Commonwealth by these negotiations with the minimum practical consequences for Lancashire.
As a manufacturer has pointed out to me, there is a very nasty snag in the Common Market negotiations as they


affect Lancashire. This assumption that, by going into Europe and applying the common external tariff to cotton textiles from India, Pakistan and Ceylon, we shall somehow be getting security for Lancashire will not work. The proposals at present being made by the British negotiators are that we should accept the imposition of one-third of the common external tariff on those goods immediately, that is 6 per cent., which means that we in Britain would have a 6 per cent. tariff protection against Asian and Commonwealth cotton textiles, but when these were re-exported to Europe they would met the internal tariff of 10 per cent. between us and the rest of the Six. Therefore, the countries of the Six would still be enjoying a tariff protection of 16 per cent. against Commonwealth Asian textile imports, compared with Britain's 6 per cent. They would be having that advantage over us at the moment when Lancashire was going into Europe to face a reduction of tariff against imports from Europe.
It is, therefore, a snare and a delusion to imagine that going into the Common Market will save the situation. We say that this problem can be solved only by the planned integration of these imports into our own home economy in a way that will not put Lancashire in a totally ruinous position relative to everybody else. That is all we are asking. Lancashire is willing to accept a generous level of these imports. She always has been. Even when she asks for the 1959 figure she is still prepared to accept a level of imports of 30 per cent. Therefore, we cannot be lectured about disregarding the needs of these other countries. We say that the time has come when, if there is to be any industry in Lancashire at all, the integration of these imports must be carried out in the context of an overall import control.
Here, I want to draw attention to a very alarming footnote to the proposed new ceilings which the President of the Board of Trade mentioned in the table at the end of his statement on 6th June. The footnote is this:
Provision is made in the present arrangements for the issue of supplementary quotas, on certain conditions, if this is necessary to ensure that the voluntary restraint exercised by these countries does not prejudice their share of the United Kingdom market in relation to other exporting countries.

In other words, unless the control over imports from other sources than the Commonwealth proves to be effective, if once again the restraint of Commonwealth countries through their voluntary agreements is by-passed by increasing imports from elsewhere, the President of the Board of Trade has held himself free to increase the ceilings by supplementary quotas. That means that the door is still open for the whole of the effect of the voluntary limitation to be destroyed by an increase in imports from elsewhere, leading in return to an increase in demand by the Commonwealth countries for higher ceilings.
There is only one way out of this dilemma, and it is this. The effective protection of the European countries does not lie merely in quotas and tariffs on these imports. It lies in the fact that the merchanting sector is integrated into the rest of the industry and acts as a voluntary censor in the interests of the home industry. That is why, although there is no quota in Holland for Asian textiles, her industry has not been ruined by this invasion because of the different structure of her industry.
It is crying for the moon for us to say to Lancashire, "Reorganise your structure by verticalisation." Emergency action is needed, and the emergency action that I call for is for the Government without delay to set up a Government-sponsored import commission with the duty of supervising all the import trading in cotton textiles. It will then release those controlled imports, including generous levels of imports from the Asian countries, on to the home market at prices which take account of the needs and the costs of production both at home and of our imported textiles, and at prices which do not have a disruptive effect on the industry.
Finally—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courage to do this because cotton manufacturers have suggested this as a way out of this fundamental problem—I suggest that any profit thus made by the import commission should be ploughed back to the under-developed countries who are exporting these textiles, in the form of contributions to their development programmes, and thus give them the foreign exchange they so badly need. A planned purchasing arrangement of that kind


would manage to reconcile our duty to the rest of the world with our fundamental and undying duty to Lancashire.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: This has been an extremely interesting and informative debate, and what emerges is that all hon. Members who have spoken, with the exception of possibly two, have been extremely critical of the Government's policy on this important issue.
I want to deal, first, with the charges about the inefficiency of the cotton textile industry. Those of us who have been long associated with it get rather tired of these often unsubstantiated charges. Our best mills are as good as any in the world, and in comparatively recent years I have been privileged to have the opportunity of seeing cotton textile mills in most of the European countries and in many of the Asian countries about which we have been talking so much today.
The President of the Board of Trade in his statement this afternoon repeated without qualification the statement that he has made several times, that in 1961 the Common Market countries exported to the United Kingdom about 70 million yards of cloth, whereas United Kingdom exported to the Common Market Six only about 6 million yards. By this bald statement, which, as I say, he has made several times, he attempts to highlight the alleged inefficiency and uncompetitiveness of the Lancashire industry compared with Western Europe which has living standards comparable to ours.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been less than fair in the way in which he has presented this picture on several occasions. Was not his Government substantially responsible for this exceptional condition in 1960 and 1961? Did not the Cotton Industry Act result in mill closures and the scrapping of machinery to twice the extent anticipated or tentatively forecast by the Government? Did not the Government at that time reject all the Amendments tabled by the Opposition in an attempt to have some selectivity about the closures which should take place? Did not their obstinate attitude in rejecting selectivity result in a temporary shortage of machinery for some categories of cloth?
To make matters worse, the closures coincided with the cyclical upturn of trade in textiles throughout the world. In the classical tradition of the private enterprise system, anticipated shortages produced a sellers' market and prices soared. The Common Market countries with excess capacity were better able to meet the exceptionally temporary demand.
About 7½ million yards of the 70 million yards referred to was grey cloth sent here for processing and re-exported to designated non European markets while a further 9 million yards was Asiatic grey cloth which was sent into Holland, processed, and exported to the United Kingdom as Dutch cloth. Therefore, about a quarter of the amount sent was in this exceptional and rather doubtful category. The industry is not afraid of straight and fair competition with the E.E.C. countries so long as it does not have to fight a war on two fronts and our own market does not continue to be eroded by duty-free imports with which no European country can compete.
It is true that there are no quantitative restrictions on Hong Kong imports into Germany and Holland. That is another statement which the right hon. Gentleman has repeated, I think without qualification, on previous occasions. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) pointed out, there are other factors and methods apart from the protective duties preventing the entry of these goods. However, into the United Kingdom they come, quota and duty free.
I agree that there are grave weaknesses in our merchanting system and it is right and proper that we have paid regard to this. Although we have dealt primarily with the problem of imports, it is right that we should consider the weaknesses that exist in some sections of the industry, and the merchanting section is undoubtedly one of them.
We must also consider the maximum use that can be made of the new machinery that is installed. This is essential, as the Estimates Committee pointed out and as has been emphasised on many previous occasions. The House should be reminded that in recent years great progress has been made. In almost every


case where new machinery has been installed, two-shift and, in some cases, three-shift working has been operated. But the great tragedy of the situation now is that these highly efficient mills that have been operating two and three shifts have had to revert from three to two or from two to one shift because there is not the market for their highly efficient production.
This is the great problem confronting the industry and the one that tremendously worries me. It is not so much the fact that mills that have not re-equipped and which are working single-shift systems on comparatively old but good machinery are in difficulties. I am greatly concerned that our highly efficient shift operating mills are now in great difficulties and do not know which way to turn. Their greatest possible difficulty is the maintenance of their labour forces.
It is on this issue of shift working which has been referred to by many hon. Members today that there is a danger of becoming obsessed with the three-shift system. In some cases two shifts are sufficient, with one or two sections operating a third shift through the night. It is a mistake to argue that the best results can only be obtained by operating the three-shift system.
Many references have been made to Japan. I have had the privilege of visiting mills in Japan on three occasions and have seen something of their postwar progress in building up from 4 million spindles in 1950 to the present total of about 10 million spindles. Let us make no mistake. Japan produces cotton textile fabrics more efficiently than any country in the world, and its big mills operate a two-shift system of two shifts of 7¾ hours. Yet these are highly efficient productive units, with machinery which is magnificently maintained.
Before I pass to my next point, may I add my appreciation to that which has already been expressed to the Estimates Committee, and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, and the members of that Committee, who did a first-class job? I would also add my thanks to the officials of the Board of Trade and to the many expert witnesses who appeared

and gave evidence before that Committee.
Inevitably, this debate has turned mainly upon the level of imports. If I may be permitted to put a different slant on this matter in order to bring it home in its stark reality, I should like to reduce it to the terms of another of our great industries—the coal industry. On the basis of an annual consumption of coal in this country of roughly 200 million tons, our industry is importing 60 million to 70 million tons per year. I put it to the House seriously: what would be the situation in that industry if anything like that level of imports were coming in and pits were being closed in consequence of it? I often wonder what the policy of the Government would have been if the products and exports of Hong Kong, India and Pakistan had been coal instead of cotton.
Much reference has been made to this increase in the level of the ceiling, and again the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that it represented only 3 per cent. of the level of domestic consumption, which is, of course, a very small percentage figure. But, again to reduce it to the terms of our coal industry, it represents additional imports of 6 million tons per year, and we can remember the outcry when an attempt was made to import 1 million tons into South Wales, and how the President of the Board of Trade promptly clamped down on it.

Mr. Erroll: Fuel oil imports come in freely from all the countries of the free world.

Mr. Thornton: I do not think that at all destroys the strength of my argument. I am coming to the point that the attitude of this Government to our industry down the years has been one of being strong with it because it was weak economically and politically, and being weak with the strong coal industry because it is powerful, economically and politically. I take second place to none in my concern for the developing countries of the world, particularly the developing Commonwealth countries. This House has a great responsibility towards them and for them.
But we must not forget that we also have responsibilities to our own people—to Lancashire, which is also part of


the Commonwealth. Sacrifices are easy if the other fellow is called upon to make them. For the present, and for the next few years, Lancashire has had a bellyfull of sacrifices. If she is to survive she must be given adequate time to digest them. This burden must be carried by the United Kingdom as a whole and not primarily by one geographical area or one industry.
The Government seemed to show some appreciation of this fact by their £30 million Cotton Industry Act of 1959, but their subsequent actions have led responsible employers to allege that it now appears to have been an election stunt. No responsible person in the industry claims that its size should be frozen or permanently maintained at its present level. We live in a changing world. But at least let us make an effort to give the industry an opportunity to obtain a foothold on the steep, slippery slope that Her Majesty's Government have done so much to create for it. For the next few years an opportunity for stability ought to be offered.
The Government's proposals and assurances referred to in the Amendment do not provide such a basis. The problem of importing manufactured goods from the developing countries cannot be solved even if Lancashire is completely sacrificed. It is a problem which Britain as a whole cannot solve; it is one for the whole developed Western world. I welcome the G.A.T.T. arrangements—both short-term and long-term—as being a move in the right direction, but I warn the House that for many European and American countries the base from which expansion is to take place is very low. If progress is to be made on a percentage basis it will take a long time to achieve any worthwhile objectives.
I believe that in the long run, if not in the short-term, the advanced Western countries will respond to the needs of the developing nations. If they do not, the political consequences will be profound. In effect, they will be the unconscious allies of Mr. Khrushchev. Britain—which, in this context, means Lancashire—cannot continue to carry a totally disproportionate burden. This means that there is a too rapid social

and industrial change, involving the loss of capital assets and of skilled labour resources at a rate which we cannot afford.
I have never taken a narrow and parochial view of this issue. We live in a changing world, and change is inevitable. What is important, as I have stated on several occasions, is the rate of change. It has been too rapid in the Lancashire textile industry. Over the last eleven years, in terms of employed personnel in the spinning, doubling and weaving sections, the industry has contracted by more than one-half—from about 350,000 employed persons to less than 170,000. This is too rapid a rate. Chaos, uncertainty, apprehension and despair have resulted. The opinion of all the witnesses who appeared before the Estimates Committee is that there has been a "crisis of confidence". This is apparent from paragraph 20 of its Report.
If this rapid contraction of an industry such as cotton is good for our national economy, as sometimes has been argued, why is it that other countries have not copied this procedure? If the President of the Board of Trade went to Geneva or elsewhere and advised them to contract their cotton textile industries because it would be such an advantage to their national economies, I imagine that he would certainly get a horse laugh, because countries which have closely protected their cotton textile industries have had, by and large, a better economic performance and better rate of growth in the last ten or eleven years than the United Kingdom.
I come back to the Geneva agreement I think it a pity that Britain left the initiative on this issue to the United States. May I tell the House the origin of this agreement, because I do not think that it is well known? It had its origin at the conference in Copenhagen, about three years ago, at which I was privileged to be present, of the International Federation of Textile and Garment Workers' Unions, and the Textile Workers' Union of America impressed the need for it on President Kennedy. That is how the Geneva agreement originated. It is another example of the imaginative efforts of the trade union movement in the international field.
I wish to refer to the open individual licence. Is the intention of the Government to act on the information which they have gathered? We in Lancashire are very suspicious that the exercise will be one of gathering additional information and then doing "nowt" about it. We hope that we can have some assurance on this issue. I welcome the Government's decision to ratify the long term agreement on international trade in cotton goods finalised by G.A.T.T. earlier this year. But there are serious doubts in the industry about the Government's intention to apply the restrictions which they will be able to apply. Can we be assured on this point? Are the Government prepared to take advantage of the Geneva agreement in the way, for example, that America has taken advantage of it if our industry is threatened with further disruption?
Reference has been made several times to Hong Kong and India. These countries, in their different ways, are very important parts of our Commonwealth, and, having been to Hong Kong on several occasions, I am conscious of the peculiar difficulties with which they are faced. But Her Majesty's Government and the Hong Kong Government have pursued a. very dangerous line in making this Colony so utterly dependent on one industry—the cotton textile industry. Hong Kong must export 90 per cent. of the products of her cotton textile industry since only 10 per cent. of her products are needed for colonial requirements.
We know from bitter experience that the cotton textile industry is one of the most difficult export industries in the world. The Japanese have found that. They have had to seal 2 million spindles. While the consumption of cotton textiles in the world continues to expand roughly in proportion with population growth, the long-term trend is definitely towards a diminution of world trade in cotton textiles. Hong Kong is now utterly dependent on this very fragile industry.
The economic position of India is very difficult. But let me remind the House that cotton textile exports to the United Kingdom represent only 2 per cent. of India's total export of commodities to all the world. The reduction of the increased ceiling for which the industry is asking would represent only a small part of the 2 per cent., probably not

more than a quarter of 1 per cent. of India's exports. I say that merely to put the matter in perspective.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say how about 3½ million people, living on a small island, could sustain themselves without their textile industry, coupled with other industries—rubber, boots, gloves, and so on?

Mr. Thornton: I recognise that the point raised by the hon. Member is a formidable one. I am suggesting that a greater effort should have been made centrally by the Government to diversify the industry, to try to prevent the island from becoming over-dependent on this single industry. I know that the problem is an extremely difficult one, but the situation in Hong Kong could become explosive if there were a serious collapse in world trade in textiles. I give that warning to the House.
I have been intimately associated with this great industry all my working life. I started work in a weaving shed on the day I became 13 years of age. I worked 10 hours a day, 55½ hours a week. I experienced the great depressions of the 1920s and the 1930s, when the once massive trade, to which reference has been made, inevitably withered away. My grandparents and forebears worked in the industry as weavers during the great cotton famine resulting from the American Civil War and they knew the hunger and privations of that period. I have read the personal diaries of a Lancashire weaver who worked during that cotton famine period.
I am sure that the House will forgive this personal note. I record it only for the purpose of saying that never have I known my people in this industry so angry, so apprehensive and so frustrated as at present. Organised by the Textile Action Group, vast numbers of people have visited London in the last few days. This organisation is largely a spontaneous manifestation of those feelings which are incapable of being roused synthetically among our fine and stoic Lancashire people. This Group is not an officially organised body. It has no connection with the official leadership either of the employers' organisations or the trade unions. But, significantly, the younger members of management are playing a prominent part.
I say this in no derogatory way. I should not like to be responsible or to accept responsibility for all their actions or utterances. But I emphasise that these activities prove conclusively to me that our fine Lancashire people feel a deep and burning sense of injustice.
They bore the burdens and the sufferings of the past. They bore them patiently and stoically. Deep down they felt that they were the victims of extraordinary happenings over which we in this country have no control. To use a Lancashire expression, they could "do nowt about it." But now they feel deep down that this is a problem which is largely within our control—that "summat could be done" and "summat ought to be done." So often in our country's history the deep human feelings of our people have been right; and the judgment and decisions of highly educated and sophisticated Governments have been wrong. I suggest to the House, feelingly and simply, that this is such a case.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Sir Keith Joseph): The last words of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) will have, I think, held and moved the whole House. To me they represent something of a challenge because, as the House will realise, I cannot possibly emulate the experience and knowledge that the hon. Gentleman brings from his whole life and background to this industry. All that I can say is that I have studied the documents in the case and I shall not presume to tell the industry or the House anything from my own knowledge, but I guarantee that everything that I shall say about the industry comes from reliable witnesses who have been before the Select Committee or from reliable publications, such as those of the Cotton Board conferences.
We have had a series of remarkable speeches. I should like to congratulate hon. Members on the benches opposite on getting so many speeches into the debate. That has been most valuable to the House. The speeches have been notable for their feeling and knowledge. This great industry certainly arouses passion among those who talk about it, and, undoubtedly, among those who have

worked, or want to work, or are working for it. I do not think that I shall be able to answer all the points raised, but on those to which I fail to reply I shall certainly write to the hon. Members concerned.
I regret that I missed the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman), but I am aware, of course, of what they said. I should like particularly to say how impressed I was by the notable speech of the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), and his hon. Friends the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). If I may say so, a mixed bag of speeches from my own hon. Friends were also most memorable, including those of a rather critical nature from the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) and the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), but I was quite comforted by some of the remarks, so vigorously put, by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover).
We have had behind the detailed speeches two great themes underlying the debate, one explicit and one silent. The explicit one is the implication for the cotton industry of this country of the growing world population and the trend of so many countries to industrialise themselves. We cannot either deplore or resist this trend. We started it. Nor can the cotton industry of England be surprised if, having pioneered the industrialisation of this country, it finds that countries abroad have learned that one of the ways to industrial takeoff is via cotton.
Lancashire when it was a cotton county, as it is no longer—only 10 per cent. of the wage-earners in Lancashire work in cotton—was of great service to this country, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) in admiring the phenomenal contribution to world industry and exports which it made at the beginning of this century. But, of course, the implications, which are familiar to all hon. Members, of this


industrialisation and population explosion in the world, face us in this country with a double duty, first, to our own citizens and, next, particularly, to the under-developed countries of the Commonwealth. I believe that we can reconcile those duties. We have in this country still the greatest single concentration of industrial skill and experience in the world, and the way to reconcile this conflict is that we should make familiar things better and new things first. This is the path of enlightened self-interest which enables us to sell abroad the goods where we lead and to buy from abroad the goods that can be made cheaper than they can be made here.
And let us not forget that so many countries far away, like India and Pakistan and the Colony of Hong Kong, are markets for our own workpeople. Last year, Hong Kong, India and Pakistan sold to this country £215 million worth of goods and bought from this country £215 million worth of goods, and from that coincidence I am excluding £25 million worth of extra exports from this country to India and Pakistan which in fact we paid for, as it were, by grants and loans.
There is that great theme, to which most hon. Members have referred, and then there is the silent theme which has not emerged so much but which is, none the less, strongly there. This is the theme expressed by a fashionable word today, an important and key word for the Government, the word "growth". We grow as a community in our resources by putting our resources to the fullest possible use. It is no good hankering after the past. As the hon. Member for Farnworth himself said, we live in a changing world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich said, the cotton industry led the world, but now, because of all the factors with which we are all familiar, some parts of it need to catch up.
It is no good hankering for the old days when we had 90 per cent. of the export of cotton to the entire world. Now our old markets make cotton cloth themselves. If we want to buy tea from India, and of course we do, we have to sell to her in exchange goods other than cotton. Of course there has been a shift in resources and a switch in our export and production effort, and the House

would agree that, though there are obviously occasional pockets where for a time this is not true, as this process of trading up has gone on, as we have grown, so employment has became more secure, earnings have gone up and the standard of living has improved. Of course change and growth are not always painless, but they are the only way in this world to do what we want—to improve the standard of living of the citizens of this country. In a fully employed economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk put it so crisply, the inevitable hardships which must occasionally result are, blessedly, generally temporary and for a short time.

Mr. Thornton: Why is it that other countries have not copied this pattern if it is so good for our growth and our economy?

Sir K. Joseph: I am coming to that. I shall try not to avoid awkward questions, and I will come to the first now.
Of course it is true that the cotton industry of this country has borne the brunt of our obligations to the Commonwealth and in doing so it has served the wider interests of the nation as well as the citizens of the Commonwealth. I have been asked, "Why not other industries, too; why have they not been exposed in this way?". As I have said, the answer is history. It was the cotton industry which showed the way. For one hundred years the cotton industry dominated the trade and exports of this country, and it has exported its own success.
Then, I am asked, "Why not switch the burden from its shoulders to the nation's, to the taxpayer in general?". But we ourselves were the first to claim from America that we wanted trade, not aid. We have to see that these people also have jobs, if possible. They are human beings and they are our obligation. Her Majesty's Government are the Government of Hong Kong as well as the Government of this country.
Then I am asked, "Why do the Government allow it?". The answer, as I was trying to explain—and I am not trying to say that everything is perfect, of course not—is that the country and the County of Lancashire are better off, more secure and earning a better living as a


result. Against this background of efficiency and re-organisation, the cotton industry has a major part to play.
The explicit theme of the debate has been confidence. In 1959, the year of the Cotton Industry Act, the taxpayer came to help the cotton industry to re-equip and concentrate. In 1959, the year of the voluntary agreements, I am told that there was in general a critical attitude but one of confidence. People said, "We wish the voluntary agreement ceilings had been lower", but on the whole they accepted 1959 as a turning point.
I regard this debate as calling upon the Government to explain why the industry still should have the confidence that it had in 1959, because the cry of hon. Member after hon. Member on both sides of the House has been, "Back to the ceilings of 1959. At worst, back to those ceilings". The difference between the ceilings today and the ceilings of 1959 is 45 million yards. That is the most important figure in the debate. I shall come back to the figure at the end of my speech, because it is a very important one.
The industry has been described by hon. Members on both sides in much the same terms. Hon. Members have said—I entirely agree with them; the evidence is in all these publications—that the best of this industry is as good as the best anywhere in the world. However, even the most passionate advocates of the cotton industry have gone on to say that the average performance of the industry is perhaps not as good as it needs to be if it is to be competitive.
The individual management and men in the firms concerned are skilled, experienced, hard working and conscientious. However, I suggest, on the evidence of the experts, that the people in these firms are to some extent hamstrung by the inheritance of the past. Marketing is one of the three points emphasised by the Estimates Committee. The House will remember that imports, marketing and the fuller use of plant and machinery are the triple emphasis at the end of the Report. The hon. Member for Farnworth referred to marketing when he mentioned the great weakness of the merchanting function.
I wonder whether the House and the members of the industry themselves fully realise what a grave influence the horizontal structure, which served the industry so well in the past, has today on the sales and the security of employment of the industry. The hon. Member for Oldham, East called it stratification. That is a very good description to explain it to a layman. The expert says that there are far too few links between the different processes, the different stages.
This has several evil consequences. First, when demand is rising, each stage, not being responsible for the previous stage, over-orders grotesquely, to use the word employed by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton. That is partly the result of the stratification, the horizontal nature of the structure of the industry. What is even more important is that a horizontally organised industry can neither market nor promote. We all know that in a buyer's market such as exists today promotion and marketing are essential. Production is no longer the key. It has to be production of what the public wants and will buy.
I do not maintain for a moment that verticalisation is a panacea. Of course I do not maintain that the whole industry should become vertical. That would be absurd. It is just impractical. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said so cogently, vigorously and correctly that often the paradox is that Lancashire is being beaten by goods which are not even competitive with her own products, but she does not take the point that this is a reflection on the marketing. This is something which can be put right.
Why are so many people on short time today? Seven thousand people in the cotton belt are working short time. An unknown number of married women in the cotton belt have left work because there is no work for them. I hope that very few of them suffer hardship. I hope that earnings are coming into their homes. Why are some people unemployed in the cotton belt? It is not because of imports. Imports have fallen. It is because of boom and slump and because of the stocks overhanging the market as a result of the 1960–61 boom and the consequent slump. I say nothing that is new to any hon. Member.


The point is that more integration, more links between producer and distributor, will iron out the worst fluctuations in these slumps.
What we need today is a new strategy for the industry which will enable it, because of a reformed structure, either to discover what the consumer wants and then set about engineering its production in the most efficient way possible or to make the goods it can make most efficiently and then set about promoting their sale to the public. Those two methods are largely impossible for a horizontally organised industry.
The slump will, of course, end. If I may refer for a moment to the employment situation, there are meanwhile other jobs, though not so near, not so familiar, not so congenial. In the Northwestern Region there are 63,000 wholly unemployed people, 1·5 per cent. of the wage earners, and roughly 27,000 unfilled vacancies, which is very nearly half the number unemployed. The national average of wholly unemployed is 1·8 per cent., which is higher than in the cotton belt.
I do not for a moment minimise the hardship, but I suggest that this is a situation which the end of the slump will largely put right. As to the older people who are in difficulties—there are some— I would point out that sitting on the Government Front Bench are my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and also the Parliamentary Secretary, who has been here to listen to some of the speeches, and I know that they have schemes for retraining and will take the utmost trouble with each individual case.
So the slump will, everybody agrees, come to an end, the stocks overhanging the market will dwindle and jobs will be there again. But the point is that a more vertical structure will stop this sort of boom and slump occurring so drastically again.
I now take the third recommendation of the Select Committee—fuller use of plant and machinery. Why does Western Europe sell cotton textiles in this country at a rapidly increasing rate during a recession when Asian imports are dropping and over a 17½ per cent. tariff? The answer is clear, again from the Select Committee. It is because Western Europe has more post-war machinery,

uses it more intensively and, incidentally, pays higher wages to its workers.
But this is no reason for despair on our part. There have been grants from the taxpayers, something to which I will come in a moment. There is, again according to the Select Committee, a great revolution in the technical capacity of the plant and machinery available to our industry to buy. We are told that in the last three years since Europe did its industrialisation, much more effective, efficient and speedy plant has been produced in this country and is waiting to be installed by our industry.
The applications under the scheme are coming in very fast. They may reach £80 million. I see the hon. Member for Gateshead, West smiling. He puts "applications" in quotation marks, saying that what really matters is the installation of the plant. The House will be glad to know that a large proportion of the £80 million has reached the claim stage. About a quarter has already been installed and about a quarter is being installed, and of the half for which applications are now being made, the major part of them represent well thought out and serious schemes, often by companies which have already had a first slice and are coming back for a second go at new plant.
Therefore, I think we can take it that by and large plant and machinery worth £80 million will be installed. The figure of applications is nearly £72 million to date. We hope that the applications will be maintained during the next few weeks. These installations will make a significant contribution to the efficiency of the industry.
I do not pretend that there are not difficulties about new plant. It is expensive and needs to be worked intensively. Shifts are difficult in a fully employed economy, particularly with a ban on women working night shift. But it can be done. As the hon. Member for Farnworth said, three shifts is not the only method of improving things. One can work two shifts or two and a half shifts. Two day shifts plus a housewife shift would make quite a difference to the cost.
In a race it is often not bad not to be in the lead if one has a reserve of power. I believe that the cotton industry is in that position today. The


major part of the industry is not leading the world race at the moment, but it knows the reasons why. It has things to do with machinery and with the structure of the industry—things which can be done; and that is why I believe there should be confidence.
All this, I shall be told, is of no possible use because when demand rises the Asian Commonwealth will cream it off and the cotton industry of this country will be left only with the residue. Why should the Asian Commonwealth have it all their own way? Of course price is important. Of course it is unlikely that we shall be able to equal the price from Hong Kong, India or Pakistan. But let us not exaggerate it. Wages are an element in total costs but they are a quite small part, and the more efficient and more automatic the machines, the smaller is the part of the cost which wages represent. Even if there is a 50 per cent. difference in wages compared with those in Hong Kong, it represents far less than that when translated into final costs.
If the industry reorganises its structure and, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, gets more of the distribution under its own power; if many more firms have marketing departments with the sole job of keeping their own plant busy; if the price differential is not too large; and if the design of our products is good, then I believe that we need not let the Asian Commonwealth even rise to their ceiling when demand rises again.
There are other things to which the industry can look forward in this country. When it is re-equipped and when it has reorganised its structure, why should it not claim back its own home market from Europe and America? The figure of the imports into this country from America and Western Europe, high-wage countries if ever there were any, was 50 million square yards more in 1961 than in 1959, and Europeans are still putting up their exports to us this year. That 50 million square yards is far more than the 45 million extra square yards which apparently represent the touchstone of this debate.
Not only, therefore, do I believe that a re-equipped and modernised industry can keep some of its home market from the Asian Commonwealth; not only can

it reclaim a lot of its home market, running at a substantial share, about 10 per cent. of consumption, from the high-wage countries; but there is virtually a ring fence around the country now against other low-wage imports and my right hon. Friend has erected a sign to new suppliers saying, "Keep off the grass".
These are not conditions in which the industry needs to be discouraged. To add to this, let me give two more encouraging points. Consumption at home is rising—not every year and not every month, but the broad trend of the consumption of cotton goods is rising. The one field which I have restrained myself from mentioning, although it is my prime responsibility, is exports. I believe that the exports of the cotton industry ought to increase remarkably when it has modernised itself and put its marketing functions in order.
I can understand how large the figure of 45 million square yards seems, but in the light of all these factors I feel that it is not quite so crucial. We know why this figure was agreed. It was agreed because we could not get the approval of the Asian Commonwealth to hold back to their 1959 ceiling of 370 million square yards in the light of the spree by new suppliers selling their goods to this country during the boom of 1960–61 while they were voluntarily restraining their exports. I hope that the House does not under-estimate the difficulty of voluntarily cutting back imports from these Asian Commonwealth countries. It represents a considerable achievement by those who did the negotiating that they voluntarily agreed to this figure.
Let the House not under-estimate, either, the burden which it would be to many millions of people to impose a solution on Hong Kong, with all its difficulties, and on India and Pakistan. Some hon. Members on the back benches on both sides of the House have said that what we want is an imposed cut. But that was not said by the hon. Member for Farnworth, who wound up the debate, or the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who opened it. They did not even try evasion. They have never mentioned imposed cuts, and it is to their credit that they have not done so. I do not believe that the 45 million square yards is the crux of this


situation. With all the ground which there is to recover in their own market and abroad, and with all the technical, mechanical and organisational weapons at the industry's command, I believe that the point is simply the will to survive of those firms which have not yet tried to modernise themselves. They have been shown the way. Many firms are doing splendidly in this country and will do better still as demand rises.
I believe that it is possible for our cotton industry to give good conditions to its workers, a better chance of earnings for them and good service to the country by way of repelling imports and increasing exports. I have explained some of the ways by which this can be done. We have, as I have said, the finest industrial manpower in the world. There is in the cotton industry some of the finest management in the world. The two can be brought together to restore the cotton industry to a place among the finest cotton industries in the world.
Let us, however, face the corollary. If some firms in the industry will not use their resources—including, at the moment, those of the taxpayer—to the full, either other firms in the cotton industry will take up those resources and use them, I hope, on more than one shift or other firms who are looking for more labour, particularly the skilled sort of labour which is available in the cotton industry, will certainly take up that labour.
To many of my hon. Friends, I come back again to the 45 million yards because it appears to be a touchstone. In the light of all the prospects for the industry, in the light of our Commonwealth obligations, in the light of what can be done by the industry, in the light of the three and a half years behind what is virtually a ringed fence with the sign "Keep off the grass", in the light of what some firms have already shown to be possible, imports or no imports, I hope that my hon. Friends will reconsider their views.
Of course we would like other countries to share the burden with us, but we must face the facts as they are today. A strong, modern cotton industry is in

birth and can, I believe, be made and do great good to the workers of the nation. The cotton industry has had its eyes fixed on imports from underdeveloped countries, and this is understandable. They account for about one-quarter of our own consumption, far more than in any comparable country, but no comparable country has a textile-producing Commonwealth and obligations to its members. The fact that the imports from this Commonwealth have grown to their present level is a fact that must be accepted. It has fallen heavily on the cotton industry because the cotton industry, for historical reasons, pioneered our development and showed the Commonwealth the way.

But let not the industry take its eyes off the main threat—the threat from the high-wage countries of the West. These countries, despite recession, despite lower imports from the East and despite a 17½ per cent. tariff, are increasing their share of our home market. Our cotton industry can now, to any extent that it wishes, get the machinery, the marketing and the organisation to do at least as well as they. The taxpayer is helping to re-equip. The Government have played their part in seeing that there is a limit on low-wage and duty-free imports.

I do not quite see what we shall be voting about this evening, because no responsible hon. Member opposite has suggested either that we should freeze the industry at its present size or impose cuts upon the Commonwealth. I ask the House to reject the Motion, which disregards what has been done to safeguard the cotton industry against further disruptive low-wage competition and to help it financially, and I ask the House to accept the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends and myself which looks forward to a stable, prosperous future for a reorganised cotton industry within a prosperous national economy.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 266.

Division No. 220.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Barlow, Sir John


Ainsley, William
Bacon, Miss Alice
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allaun, Frank, (Salford, E.)
Baird, John
Bence, Cyril




Benson, Sir George
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, John


Bidgood, John C.
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F,
Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Plummer, Sir Leslle


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Probert, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Proctor, W. T.


Boyden, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Randall, Harry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Rhodes, H.


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Elwyn (Kest Ham, S.)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cronin, John
Kenyon, Clifford
Short, Edward


Crosland, Anthony
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, R. H. S.
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dalyell, T.
Lawson, George
Skeffington, Arthur


Darling, George
Leavey, J. A.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ledger, Ron
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Diamond, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, Norman
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Donnelly, Desmond
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, Thomas


Drayson, G. B.
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Edelman, Maurice
Mclnnes, James
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Taverne, D.


Evans, Albert
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fitch, Alan
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles
Thornton, Ernest


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher
Warbey, William


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Weitzman, David


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Milne, Edward
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gourlay, Harry
Monslow, Walter
White, Mrs. Eirene


Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.
Wigg, George


Grey, Charles
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gunter, Ray
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oram, A. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hall. Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hannan, William
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Harper, Joseph
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hay man, F. H.
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Healey, Denis
Parker, John



Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Allason, James
Box, Donald
Cleaver, Leonard


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cole, Norman


Arbuthnot, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cooper, A. E.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Brewis, John
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Coulson, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony


Barber, Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Barter, John
Buck, Antony
Crawley, A. M.


Batsford, Brian
Bullard, Denys
Critchley, Julian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Cunningham, Knox


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burden, F. A.
Currie, G. B. H.


Biffen, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Dance, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bingham, R. M.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Deedes, W. F.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
de Ferranti, Basil


Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Black, Sir Cyril
Channon, H. P. G.
Doughty, Charles


Bossom, Clive
Chataway, Christopher
du Cann, Edward







Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Eden, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pym, Francis


Elliott, R. W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kirk, Peter
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Errolll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Hugh


Farr, John
Lagden, Godfrey
Renton, David


Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Viscount
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridsdale, Julian


Foster, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Geoffrey


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Leather, Sir Edwin
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Leburn, Gilmour
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R.(B'pool, S.)


Freeth, Denzil
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Gammans, Lady
Lilley, F. J. P.
Roots, William


Gardner, Edward
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gibson-Watt, David
Litchfield, Capt. John
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Gilmour, Sir John
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Russell, Ronald


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Longbottom, Charles
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert
Sharples, Richard


Gough, Frederick
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, M.


Gower, Raymond
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Shepherd, William


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chlswick)


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Smithers, Peter


Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gurden, Harold
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stodart, J. A.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Talbot, John E.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maitland, Sir John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, Frank(M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Hastings,Stephen
Mariowe, Anthony
Teeling, Sir William


Heald, Rt. Hon, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas
Temple, John M.


Hendry, Forbes
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hicks Beach, Maj. W,
Matthews, Gordon (Merldan)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hiley Joseph
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hill, J. E B. (S. Norfolk)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hobson, Sir John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turner, Colin


Hocking, Philip N.
Morgan, William
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hooson, H. E.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Hopkins, Alan
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hornby, R. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wade, Donald


Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral John
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Walder, David


Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walker, Peter


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wall, Patrick


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel, John
Webster, David


Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Whitelaw, William


Jackson, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


James, David
Pitman, Sir James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wise, A. R.


Jennings, J. C.
Pott, Percivall
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Woollam, John


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)



Joseph, Sir Keith
Prior, J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Mr. Chichester-Clark and




Mr. Finlay.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 185.

Division No. 221.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord
Biggs-Davison, John


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Barber, Anthony
Bingham, R. M.


Allason, James
Barter, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Batsford, Brian
Bishop, F. P.


Arbuthnot, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Black, Sir Cyril


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bossom, Clive


Atkins, Humphrey
Biffen, John
Bourne-Arton, A.




Box, Donald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hobson, Sir John
Peel, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hocking, Philip N.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brewis, John
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hopkins, Alan
Pitman, Sir James


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, R. P.
Pitt, Miss Edith


Buck, Antony
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pott, Percivall


Bullard, Denys
Hughes-Young, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Burden, F. A.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jackson, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
James, David
Pym, Francis


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chataway, Christopher
Jennings, J. C.
Rawllnson, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayna, Rt. Hon. Martin


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees, Hugh


Clark, William (Nottingham, 8.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Renton, David


Cleaver, Leonard
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cole, Norman
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooper, A. E.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rippon, Geoffrey


Costain, A. P
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Coulson, Michael
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B' pool, S.)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Kershaw, Anthony
Robson Brown, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kimball, Marcus
Roots, William


Crawley, A.M.
Kirk, Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Critchley, Julian
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cunningham, Knox
Lagden, Godfrey
Russell, Ronald


Currie, G. B. H.
Lambton, Viscount
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Deedes, W. F.
Leather, Sir Edwin
Shaw, M.


de Ferranti, Basil
Leburn, Gilmour
Shepherd, William


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Doughty, Charles
Lilly, F. J. P.
Smithers, Peter


du Cann, Edward
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Smith, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Litchfield, Capt. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Eden, John




Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Elliott,R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (wirral)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Longbottom, Charles
Stodart, J. A.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Summers, Sir Spencer


Farr, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Talbot, John E.


Fell, Anthony
McLaren, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Foster, John
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Teeling, Sir William


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn.Iain (Enfield, W.)
Temple, John M.


Freeth, Denzil
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gammans, Lady
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gardner, Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gibson-Watt, David
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfrles)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gilmour, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maitland, Sir John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Goodhart, Philip
Marlowe, Anthony
Turner, Colin


Gower, Raymond
Marshall, Douglas
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marten, Neil
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Vane, W. M. F.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walder, David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Webster, David


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morgan, William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wise, A. R.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woollam, John


Hicks Beach, MaJ. W.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and




Mr. Whitelaw.







NOES


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Pargiter, G. A.


Alnsley, William
Harper, Joseph
Parker, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Pavitt, Laurence


Bacon, Miss Alice
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Peart, Frederick


Baird, John
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hilton, A. v.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, Cyril
Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Blackburn, F,
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowles, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Boyden, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jeger, George
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Ross, William


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Skeffington, Arthur


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Small, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C.W.
Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Snow, Julian


Cronin, John
Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


Crosland, Anthony
Leavey, J. A.
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, R. H. S.
Ledger, Ron
Steele, Thomas


Dalyell, T.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Darling, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stonehouse, John


Davles, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davles, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, John
Loughlln, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Dodds, Norman
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taverne, D.


Donnelly, Desmond
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Drayson, G. B.
MacDermot, Niall
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Driberg, Tom
Mcinnes, James
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, Maurice
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Warbey, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fitch, Alan
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Hudderfield, E.)



Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
White, Mrs. Eirene


Forman, J. C.
Mayhew, Christopher
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilkins, W.A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Willey, Frederick


Glnsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gunter, Ray
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Will



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Colne Valley)
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the conclusions of the Estimates Committee (in their Fourth Report 1961–62) and welcomes the assurances

on import policy contained in the Government statement of 6th June as providing the basis upon which the cotton textile industry can work for future efficiency, stability and well being within a prosperous national economy.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SILO SUBSIDIES)

10.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move,
That the Silo Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.
I suggest that it might be for the general convenience if we also took the Scottish Order which is similar terms.

Mr. Speaker: Certainly, if the House so pleases.

Mr. Vane: I am sure that the House will welcome this affirmative Resolution, enabling us to continue these subsidies after the end of next month. The Silo Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, which has been laid before the House in draft, proposes to extend for a further three years the power to pay subsidies on the construction of silos, under the authority of the Agriculture (Silo Subsidies) Act 1956. The Scheme now proposed differs very little from the 1959 Scheme which expires at the end of next month.
Under the Silo Subsidies Schemes, subsidies are paid towards the operations involved in constructing or improving a silo. The operations which are eligible are set out in the first Schedule and cover all the works necessary for the construction of a silo, together with the rate of subsidy payable on each. A standard rate of subsidy is set out for each of the items in the Schedule, under which a grant is payable in accordance either with the amount of work done under any one heading or with the size of the silo, as the case may be. This Scheme has always been weighted in favour of the smaller man. It provides a maximum sum of £250 for all works on silos on one farm. There are separate maxima within this total of £125, respectively, for work connected with the construction or improvement of silos, excluding the roof, and a similar sum for the roof.
The reason for prescribing these maxima is that the silo subsidies are designed not as straight subsidies on the construction of silos as such, but to give

farmers a financial help towards finding out more about silage making, which we hope will play a helpful part in the management of their farms and of their grassland. The main purpose, therefore, is encouragement, and particularly encouragement to small farmers. When in doubt, we hope that farmers will continue to consult our advisory service, and, as a result of such advice, many efficient schemes have been developed. We are not proposing now to increase the maxima, but the aim is to cover about half the cost of an ordinary installation. We are proposing to raise the subsidy rates for certain of the items of work, especially where this can be justified having regard to changes in the cost of labour and materials.
There is an additional Schedule in this new Scheme, compared with the last, but this second Schedule does not greatly change the principle of the Scheme. The details of the constructional work were previously dealt with administratively, and now, to make it clearer to all concerned, we have put them in the Scheme. I realise that this seems a formidable list of requirements, but it is better that all should know what it involves and that we should aim for high standards. It just spells out the constructional standards which are already being applied administratively. We hope that the Schedule will be helpful to farmers in making their plans.
Finally, I want to say a word about the response to the Schemes. They got away very well after its introduction in 1957, when there were 13,400 approvals in the United Kingdom. Needless to say, that rate has not been maintained. None the less there are about 5,000 applications annually, which represent an outlay in subsidy of about £750,000 per annum, which is included in the Price Review calculations. Since the beginning of the Schemes over £5 million has been paid in grants, and over 40,000 applications have been approved for the United Kingdom.
That is a formidable figure, and I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Schemes have proved themselves in the light of experience. It shows, too, that there is a need—

Mr. E. G. Willis: What is the figure for Scotland?

Mr. Vane: I believe that the figure for Scotland is about 6,000. If I am wrong, my hon. Friend will give the right figure. My hon. Friend tells me that the figure is 6,700. I think, therefore, that the Scheme has justified itself in Scotland—where conditions are different from those in England—as well as in England and Wales. Accordingly I ask the House to approve these Schemes, which I hope will continue in the future to do the same good work as they have done in the past.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary has presented Schemes which hon. Members on this side of the House do not oppose. We accept the need for the subsidy and have always supported it. At the same time, we have sought to probe the matter in order to see how the Schemes work. That is the attitude that should be adopted by all hon. Members on both sides of the House. These subsidies, which are considered during the Price Review, are shown in Appendix 5 of the White Paper. In 1959–60 the figure was £1·4 million, and it is estimated that this year it will be £0·9 million.
It is right that the House should carefully scrutinise the subsidies, which are an important part of our farm support policy, and which are under review not only in the House but also at Brussels in connection with the Common Market. I agree with the subsidy and I support it, and my hon. Friend on previous occasions has not opposed it. We have merely sought from the Minister details of its administration.
The Minister has told us that there are 5,000 applications annually and that the estimated cost is about £750,000 annually. These applications are taken into account in the annual Price Review calculations. The Minister also told us that since the introduction of the Schemes approximately £5 million has been spent. I assume that this was in respect of the 40,000 schemes which have been approved. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked for the Scottish figure, which I understand is 6,700.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I am afraid that I misled my hon. Friend on that

point. It would be easier if I gave the exact figures now. The total number for England and Wales is 33,782. For Northern Ireland it is 6,771, and for Scotland 3,209.

Mr. Willis: That is worse still.

Mr. Peart: I will leave my hon. Friends with Scottish constituencies to make their comments on that. I was trying to find out how the Scheme was progressing for Wales. When we debated this subsidy on 29th January, 1958, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) asked the Minister to break down the figures for the different countries. I understand from information which I have that the scheme did not go well in Wales. It would be very wrong to neglect the Principality. Wales is an important part of our agricultural community, and we ought to know the relevant figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor is not here tonight, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who has an interest in agriculture, would like to press this matter. We want separate figures for Wales showing how many schemes have been approved.
I could easily argue about details, but I do not want to get too involved. There is one major point which was raised when we debated these subsidies on 2nd July, 1959, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who then led for the Opposition. He asked how far these subsidies were related to the Farm Improvement Scheme, and whether this was to be regarded purely as a separate Scheme, running parallel. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a promise to consider the matter and keep it under review. Perhaps at a later stage the Government would make an announcement.
Is it the intention of the Government to absorb this Scheme into the Farm Improvement Scheme? As hon. Members know, this was suggested by the Caine Committee on Grassland Utilisation, which was set up by the Ministry. Is it the Government's intention to review the position and to alter it? Will the subsidy continue, or will there be a change in administration? I do not think that the incidence of subsidy is affected. This is more a matter of broad policy and administration.
We on this side support the subsidy. I believe in anything which helps the small farmer in particular. I recognise that the large farmer who wants a big installation is not covered. We support the Scheme, furthermore, as a means of developing our own feedingstuffs. We are anxious that the Scheme should be administered well. That is why I want to know whether it will continue parallel with the Farm Improvement Scheme or will be absorbed.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I should like to say a word or two on the subject of the silo subsidy. I do not think that we can complain about the figure of 3,200 approvals of schemes for Scotland as against 33,700 for England and Wales. That represents just about the proportion of land. The Irish figure is extraordinarily high at 6,700, because the Irish get their subsidy for silos and have to build a silo before they get a subsidy for it. Naturally, this results in a lot more silos in Ireland.
I wish, however, to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about incorporating the scheme in the Farm Improvement Scheme. To have it as a separate scheme for the erection of silos by medium or large-scale farmers will work against their having a flexible set of buildings. This is an important point and I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to consider it carefully. To satisfy the Ministry's requirements, certain things have to be done which make the silo a rigid fixture, which means that the buildings cannot be altered for any other purpose.

Mr. Vane: Mr. Vane indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not agree. The hon. Gentleman can consult the file at the Ministry where he will see evidence of the battle that I had. I contacted his hon. Friend in another place about the matter. As my hon. Friend has said, we were told that the Minister would look at the matter, but we have been given no information.
I am aware of the argument that this is loaded in favour of the small farmer, but now that we have the Scheme for small farmers I think that this could be incorporated in that Scheme and I

make an appeal for that to be done. We are always looking for ways to save money, and I am sure that the present procedure must cost a lot of money. I do not know what my own case must have cost in letters and phone calls before I got the matter settled. I ask the Minister to consider whether this could not be incorporated also in the Farm Improvement Scheme.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I welcome this scheme as I welcome anything which is in favour of the small producer. After the recent debate in the Welsh Grand Committee the Parliamentary Secretary will know of my anxiety to have a breakdown of statistics relating to Wales. There is a digest of Welsh statistic up to 1960. The total number of schemes for Wales is 4,686, involving a sum of £637,000. I should like to hear the up-to-date figures. If figures for past years are available they too, should be available.
Even more important than the actual figures is whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us what is the attitude of the National Agricultural Advisory Service. Is it satisfied with the response from Wales compared with the rest of the country, having regard to the limited resources in Wales? My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) referred to the fact that in Ireland there is a special grant for silage. I should be out of order were I to pursue that matter, but obviously that is a tremendous advantage for Ireland.
In the past there have been complaints, in respect of this and other schemes, about the hardship resulting to farmers because of the large number of forms which have to be filled up and the long time that farmers have to wait before receiving the final payment from the Ministry, even When the forms have been completed. Perhaps the Minister could give some indication of the average length of time between the completion of the final form and the payment.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) said that the Scottish farmer appeared to be getting as much as he ought to get on a pro rata basis.

Mr. Mackie: Not as much as he ought to get.

Mr. Lawson: I gathered that he thought that the figure was about right when compared with the English figure. It is not often that I find myself saying a word for the Scottish farmer, but perhaps I may do so now.
Scotland has about one-tenth of the population of Great Britain but much more than one-tenth of the land surface. Much of the land surface of Scotland is not much good for farming, but much is and I am sure that that which is is more than one-tenth of the good English and Welsh land. As the amounts are proportionately so different, is it that the Scottish Office does not look after the interests of the Scottish farmer as well as the Ministry of Agriculture looks after the interests of the English and Welsh farmer? Wales is substantially smaller than Scotland, but even the old and out-of-date figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) showed 4,000 schemes for Wales. What is the position in Scotland and what is happening to hon. Members opposite, who are so ready to defend the interests of the Scottish farmer, that they should allow this to happen?
However, my primary purpose in rising was to ask for an explanation. We have heard much about the independence of the farmer and we have appreciated his sturdy character. We know what the Welfare State is supposed to have done to ordinary workers in industrial areas. Surely it is not the intention of hon. Members opposite to undermine the sturdy character of the farmer and make him one of those persons who are always holding out their hands for all the public assistance they can get. Why, therefore, should there be this assistance for farmers?
We have heard about the small farmer. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East is not a small farmer. I understand that he is a very big farmer indeed, not only in England, but in Scotland and elsewhere. Yet he appears to have been benefiting from this subsidy. There is nothing personal about this, of course, but is my hon. Friend to tell me that he could not have built these silos without the subsidy? Is he to tell me that, although this provision was so beneficial to our agriculture and

food supply, he and others like him would not have built silos without the subsidy?

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) first argues that Scottish farmers are not getting enough and then that they are getting too much. Which way is he to have it?

Mr. Lawson: If assistance is to be given and is so necessary for the well-being of farmers, then the Scottish farmers have as much right to it as the English and Welsh farmers. I am not denying them the assistance, if it is necessary. If hon. Members opposite tell me that the sturdy farmer, who has stood on his own two legs for so many generations, the bulldog breed prepared to take on all comers, now needs assistance, let him have it, and give the Scottish farmer as much assistance as the English and Welsh farmer. But I am also questioning the need for the assistance.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would not my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) also agree that the more subsidy paid to the large English farmer the less there is available for the small Scottish farmer?

Mr. Lawson: That may or may not be. I am not sure about this. That is why I want an explanation, first of whether the subsidy is necessary and, if it is necessary for farmers south of the Border, why not as much is being done for farmers north of the Border.
Despite some of my hon. Friends, I am not satisfied that we are doing the best for the farmer. I am concerned about the farmer and I want him to preserve that sturdy independent spirit about which we have heard so much. I would not like it to be undermined.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: Would not the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) agree that on the whole the Scottish farmer draws marginal agricultural production grants and that one of the snags about silage is that the farmer does not draw M.A.P. for silage and the tendency therefore is to grow something for which a M.A.P. grant is paid rather than mowing a field for silage for which there is no M.A.P. grant?

Mr. Lawson: Perhaps this will emerge when we hear what the Minister has to say. I am merely asking questions. I do not represent farmers. I represent steelworkers. They are not subsidised. I merely want to be assured that the interests which are supposed to be served are served. I have a doubt. I do not want to see our country lose the characters I admire and of which we are all proud. Did I hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that these subsidies would amount to roughly half the cost of building?

Mr. Vane: Mr. Vane indicated assent.

Mr. Lawson: Under the Housing (Scotland) Bill a £12 subsidy will be paid to a large number of local authorities in respect of houses which will cost about £150 annually for sixty years. A subsidy of £12 per annum on £150 is 8 per cent. If subsidies are to be paid, the value to society should be taken into account. A house in which human beings will live should be subsidised to the extent of more than 8 per cent., measured against a silo which will merely house grain. It is a measure of value. A subsidy of 50 per cent. for a silo makes a startling comparison with a subsidy of 8 per cent. for a house. I understand that a subsidy of up to one-third is payable if a pigsty is built.
Have we got our values right? Is it right that the State, the public purse, should pay as much as 50 per cent. of the cost of building a silo whereas it pays only 8 per cent. of the cost of building a house? Is the Minister satisfied that this is right? I hope that he will allay at least some of my doubts and enable me not to press the Division that I might otherwise feel inclined to press.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Percy Browne: I sympathise with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) having to listen to that woolly-minded speech by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). Heaven help the farmers if the Socialists ever have to minister to their needs. One of the objects of this subsidy to producers, which is what it is, is to preserve home grown foods so that we shall not have to import, paying dollars for them, more foodstuffs from overseas. Every farmer, irrespective of whether he

be a Welshman, a Devonian, or a Scotsman has an equal right to apply for the subsidy. It is entirely up to him whether he does or not. It is no good the hon. Member for Motherwell belly-aching about the farmers in Scotland not having a fair crack of the whip. They have an equal right with every other farmer to apply for the subsidy if they wish.
Is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that his local officers are using the same criteria all the time country by country and area by area? Are they not changing them fairly frequently from place to place, making it extremely difficult for some local builders to comply with the regulations, resulting in many cases in a stereotyped building which is produced in mass by the large builder? If we are to preserve the countryside generally, it is important that the small builder should have the opportunity of putting up silos with barns over them. Can we take it that now that we have a schedule in the Scheme, that schedule will be adhered to all the time?

10.51 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The criticisms by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) were not very well founded. [Laughter.] I will wait while the hon. Member finishes his mirthful demonstration. My hon. Friend was doing what is our job to do, asking why we were paying money to people who could afford to do without it.

Hon. Members: What about the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie)?

Mr. Willis: We have demonstrations from hon. Members opposite about the great volume of Government expenditure. One of its biggest items is agricultural subsidies. But rarely do those hon. Members question this item. The questioning of agricultural subsidies comes mainly from the Opposition.

Mr. P. Browne: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear my hon. Friend say, rightly, that owing to the limited amount that could go for these subsidies, they were not likely to benefit the large farmers generally because they usually put up larger units? I should have


thought that would have appealed to the hon. Gentleman as a result of the argument he and I had over the fertiliser subsidy some months ago.

Mr. Willis: I was coming to the fertiliser subsidy—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I think we had better not come to the fertiliser subsidy.

Mr. Willis: That was a passing reference, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member knows that the questioning comes in the main from the Opposition. We spent about three months in the Scottish Grand Committee this year discussing whether we should have differential rates because subsidies should not be paid to people who can afford to do without them. But hon. Members opposite do not argue in that manner when we deal with the farming community. Obviously, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) gets a subsidy for his silos. I see him nodding in agreement. So he has caused the Government to spend money in dealing with his claim. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell was simply asking whether we ought to continue to pay subsidies to people who can afford to do without them. Hon. Members opposite do not like to be reminded that hundreds of people are in receipt of agricultural subsidies of one form or another who do not need them.

Mr. Kimball: On a point of order. I cannot accept that one of my most distinguished constituents, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie), is in receipt of subsidies which he does not need.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Willis: He knows that it is true. We have opposed the ploughing grants for many years because we question whether the money is well spent, and we asked whether the fertiliser grant went only to those who needed it. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell is asking a simple question which ought to be asked—are these subsidies going only to those who need them? It is the duty of hon. Members to ask such questions. This does not mean that we are opposed to support for agriculture or

do not recognise the importance of silos and silage and the necessity to try to reduce the imports of winter feed. We all subscribe to those purposes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said that we supported these subsidies precisely because we recognise them. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell is asking is whether this is the best way of paying them. Are we ensuring that those people who need the subsidy, get it, and that those who do not need it, do not get it?

Mr. P. Browne: When we were discussing another Order I asked the hon. Member what alternative he suggested, and he replied that that was not his job. What alternative does he suggest in this case?

Mr. Willis: I am not the Government. We are asked to pass a Scheme which will give subsidies for the erection of silos. We are entitled to tell the Government that we think that certain people ought not to have them.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I take it that the hon. Member is advocating a means test.

Mr. Willis: I am not advocating anything. I am acting as a critic. But if a means test is in order for municipal tenants, I do not see why it is not in order for farmers. No doubt if the hon. Member wants certain grants he will find that he is subjected to a means test. Much rubbish is talked about this.
We say that a great deal of money is given to people who do not need it. Is it the purpose of the House to do that? I suggest, as we suggested on the ploughing grants many years ago, that the Government ought to be examining this to see whether the Scheme is the best which could be operated. Can we have a better Scheme? Can we save money in some directions on this Scheme? That is a simple question which we are entitled to ask.
I am puzzled by the Scottish figure of approvals. There may be a good explanation for it, but I should have thought that it was just as important to try to encourage the use of silage in Scotland as it was anywhere else. It is probably more important because the climatic conditions are such that that kind of feed is needed for longer periods


than in England. I accept the explanation of the larger figure for Northern Ireland, though that is a smaller country than Scotland, but the difference between the figure for Scotland and that for England and Wales seems rather large. I should think that, in reply to the debate, we should have some explanation why this is so. Is the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland satisfied with this figure? If he is not, what steps is he taking to increase it? I do not say this because I think that we in Scotland should have a greater share of the money, but because I think that silage is more important in Scotland than elsewhere.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: All I want to do is to reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), who for the first time since I have been a Member of the House has been so kind as to express anxiety about the welfare of myself and my colleagues who are on the land in Scotland. I assure the hon. Member that, although the figures of approvals appear at first sight to show a discrepancy, Scotland is doing all right out of this Scheme.
I am not as certain about the extent of the acquaintance of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) with silage. I think it probable that living, as he does, in that plush Great King Street, with more lawyers to the acre than anywhere else, he does not either see or smell silage very often. I am sure that both hon. Members would agree with me that Scotland produces better beef than any other part of the United Kingdom, and—although I admit that this is open to dispute—better mutton as well.
I would say that nine out of ten of the great beef breeders do it in Scotland by not feeding silage at all. They do it by feeding turnips. They are a conservative lot in Scotland, but it pays off. Hon. Members opposite will discover that root crop for feeding stock occupies a far larger place in the total cropping in Scotland than in England and Wales. This is largely for the climatic reasons which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned, though he got them completely wrong. The turnip does not grow Well in England, where it is drier, and

therefore English farmers have been forced back on silage. I think this is a point worth making for the general education of hon. Members opposite who, I am very glad to see are taking so lively and sympathetic an interest. If we have won the sympathy of the hon. Member for Motherwell, that is the greatest achievement that the agricultural industry has accomplished in the last few years.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I do not want to spend a long time on this Scheme, because I think the next Statutory Instrument that we are to debate is more important from my point of view at least.
I wish to deal with one specific point. I do not understand the sensitivity of hon. Members opposite. When my hon. Friends talk about subsidies hon. Members opposite resent the suggestion on this side of the House that it might be necessary to say to a farmer, "Can we be satisfied that this subsidy is absolutely necessary in the economic sense?" Hon. Members opposite seem to think that it is all right to pay out to the farming community whatever sums they deem to be necessary, irrespective of whether there is any need. But if there is the slightest suggestion that the agricultural worker, who may be living in a municipal house, should receive subsidies hon. Members opposite are bitterly resentful.

Mr. P. Browne: Nonsense.

Mr. Loughlin: I was a member of the Standing Committee dealing with the Housing Bill a short time ago, and there are present on the benches opposite some hon. Members who also served on that Standing Committee, and they constantly argued that there should be a determination of need before public moneys were expended. Hon. Members are fully prepared to pump public money into any industry which likes to come with its begging bowl, but when the workers in the industry are involved it is a different story.

Mr. Browne: Mr. Browne rose—

Mr. Loughlin: No, I shall not give way. I would not mind giving way, but my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) had to give


way constantly when he was speaking. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) spoke for about three minutes and then resumed his seat. If he cannot make his speech in his own way without wanting to intervene afterwards in other speeches, he cannot expect me to be generous towards him.
I want to deal with a matter connected with Schedule 2 of the Scheme. This Schedule is a specification of work, and it appears to me to be too rigid and restrictive. I think that it was the hon. Member for Torrington who raised the question of the type of building that we were getting on the farms. I wonder whether this specification restricts, if not prohibits, the construction of what I like to term unconventional silos. I have a vague idea that I had considerable correspondence with the Minister's Department on this very issue a couple of years ago.
If it said that these are the specifications which must be complied with to qualify for a grant, the fact that all the specifications are so clearly laid down—not in the content of cement or mortar or location, but in the content of lengths and heights—ought to be further considered. I wonder whether there is not too great a degree of restriction in this Scheme. I hope that the Minister will consider the possibility of exercising his powers under other paragraphs of the Scheme, under which he is able to give approval for buildings which may be serving the purpose, without necessarily coming within the specifications laid down here.

11.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): I do not know how my hon. Friends react to the speeches of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but I assure them that I do not in any way resent their contributions this evening, or at any other time, because on many of these occasions they give us a fair number of good quotes which are worthy of use on future occasions. At the same time, I appreciate that it is the responsibility of the Opposition to go into these questions, to probe matters, and to ask questions, and I shall do my best to try to answer some

of the questions which have been asked tonight.
I do not think that it would do us very much good to start a long debate on the national issues of whether each of the four countries is getting a fair crack of the whip, but, in answer particularly to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—and this may be a great surprise to some of the Scottish Members—of the figure of 33,782 which I gave for England and Wales, no less than 7,000 apply to Wales, amounting to a total of £1·3 million, which is even higher than the number for Northern Ireland, and certainly much higher than the number for Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) to some extent put his finger on the reason for that, but there are other reasons. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) gave a valid reason for the comparatively large number applying to Northern Ireland, but at the same time another factor to be taken into account is that in Scotland, as opposed to many parts of the Principality and many parts of England, farms are somewhat bigger, and this Scheme is specifically designed to help the small farmer.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry to interrupt, but am I to understand that farms in Scotland are larger than those in England?

Mr. Leburn: Certainly. There is a higher proportion of small farms in England and Wales than in Scotland. If I may give one figure which I think is interesting, since 1956, before the first Silo Subsidy Scheme was introduced, the total tonnage of silage produced in Scotland was 368,000. By 1961 production was 961,000 tons, an increase of 160 per cent. The corresponding figures for England and Wales were 2,752,000 tons in 1956 up to 3,749,000 tons in 1961, an increase of only 40 per cent. This shows that we have been taking full advantage of this in that the increase in silage production since 1956 in Scotland has gone up by 160 per cent. whereas it has gone up by only 40 per cent. in England and Wales. It also shows that Scottish farmers are responding to this useful scheme and are taking advantage of it.
Regarding the Schedule, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West and


my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) raised two points. While I agree that the second Schedule looks a rather formidable document, I went into it carefully and came to the conclusion that it did no more than lay down what might be described as good building practices and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Schedule will be adhered to.
In this connection, regarding the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, I think it lays down good building practices and still leaves plenty of discretion to the individual farmer to construct his silo in the way he thinks best. If I thought that that was not so I would be pleased to look into the point the hon. Member made. I think it gives a wide discretion as to the materials to be used. At the same time, we want to ensure that farmers construct these silos in a proper way, from proper materials so that they will stand up to the strain imposed on them.

Mr. Loughlin: I would make it perfectly clear that I, too, want to see good building practices. I was more concerned with the question of whether the specifications restrict the type of buildings that may be constructed.

Mr. Leburn: I do not think that they do, but I will be glad to look into that. In any case, the Ministers have discretion in the matter and all that is covered is the widest range of materials. Using that range, the individual farmer can construct his silo in the way he thinks fit.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and other hon. Members raised the question of the possible amalgamation of the Silo Subsidy Schemes and the Farm Improvement Scheme. I repeat what my hon. Friend said when introducing the Regulations; I ask the House to appreciate that the purpose of the subsidy is to foster the improvement of grassland and the better use of grass by encouraging the farmer, particularly the small farmer—and I cannot emphasise this too much—to start making grass silage. In this connection I would draw attention to what was said by the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture in the debate in 1959. He said:

… it was never the intention of the Silo Subsidies Scheme to provide grants for the larger fanner to build large and expensive silos. The scheme was deliberately weighted in favour of the smaller farmer, both by providing a relatively high rate of subsidy on individual items in the Schedule and by limiting the total amount of subsidy payable on any one agricultural unit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 740.]

Mr. Peart: I accept that. I copied out that quotation, although I did not specifically refer to it. But the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government were keeping this matter under review. That is a long time ago. What has happened since? Will there be any change?

Mr. Leburn: I was going on to say, if the hon. Member had not interrupted me that, as my hon. Friend said at that time, we were making a review of the relationship between the Silo Subsidies Scheme and the Farm Improvement Scheme. This has been done. For the following reasons we think that it is best not to integrate the Silo Subsidies Scheme into the Farm Improvement Scheme: first, because silo payments are essentially production grants offered as an inducement to occupiers of agricultural land to start making silage. They rank as production grants for the purpose of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1957. On the other hand, payments made under the Farm Improvement Scheme are capital grants towards the provision of long-term improvements in the fixed equipment of a farm—improvements which a landlord may make himself or be prepared to take over from a tenant.
Secondly, applications under the Farm Improvement Scheme must pass a certain test. The land must be occupied, together with the buildings, and be capable of yielding a sufficient livelihood for the occupier. If the Silo Subsidies Scheme were to be integrated with the Farm Improvement Scheme some small farmers might not in future be able to receive the grant.
Thirdly, at present the applicant receives £250 of silo subsidy for the construction of a silo costing an estimated £500, and the silo subsidy rates are approximately 50 per cent. of the cost. Under the Farm Improvement Scheme the rate of grant is only one-third. Therefore, while the larger farmers might benefit we feel that in the best interests


of the smaller farmers the two Schemes ought not to be integrated.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful for that answer. Hon. Members on this side of the House certainly approve the Scheme, despite the criticisms that have been made. I approve it and my party approves it. We believe that it will help the small farmer. I understand the reason why it has not been integrated into the Small Farmers Scheme.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member did not get my point. Since the Scheme came into force, generally speaking a new silo is a self-feeding silo, or incorporates modern methods. Under this Scheme, unless the farmer has a rigid silo, with cement sides and bottom, called a permanent silo, the grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme may be withheld. It should not make any difference if a man incorporates a new silo. I do not understand the hon. Member's point about the small farmer. Where does one differentiate, with farms going from 20 acres to 2,000 acres? It would be simple if the Scheme were integrated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is making a second speech without the leave of the House or is abusing the courtesy of being allowed to make an intervention.

Mr. Leburn: The hon. Member probably imagined that he was having difficulty in getting me to understand the point, but it is clear to me. It is not a point which had escaped us. When a farmer puts up a comprehensive scheme under the Farm Improvement Scheme, we cannot allow him carte blanche to put up any kind of silo or as large a silo as he wants and obtain grant for it under the Farm Improvement Scheme, otherwise we would be differentiating in favour of such a farmer. No farmer can get more than £250 for his silo, whereas by building a large one inside a comprehensive building costing, say, £5,000, under the Farm Improvement Scheme a farmer would get one-third of that figure.
At the same time, the hon. Member knows perfectly well that when a silo is integrated within a comprehensive building, the walls and the roof are probably allowed under the Farm Improvement Scheme and it is only things

which are specifically applicable to the silo, such as the walls and the floor, to which the Silo Subsidy Scheme specifically applies. This is right and proper.
I hope that with these explanations the House will feel inclined to approve the two schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Silo Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.
Silo Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1962 [draft laid before the House, on 31st May], approved.—[Mr. Leburn.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MACHINERY)

11.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture (Field Machinery) Regulations, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.
These Regulations, which will apply to Great Britain, are the tenth in the farm safety series. The existing Measures cover farm risks arising from unsafe buildings and ladders, power take-offs, circular saws, threshers and stationary balers, among other things. We are now concerned with mobile field machines such as tractors, combines, different harvesters, trailers and the like and also with powered handtools. The purpose of the Regulations is to protect farm and forestry workers against the risk of injury when using these machines.
As in other safety Regulations, obligations are imposed on both employers and workers. Employers must not let workers use a machine unless it complies with the Regulations. In general, components such as shafting, pulleys, flywheels or belts which might cause injury must be guarded. In addition, specific requirements are laid down regarding other parts of power-driven field machines of a particular kind. I do not want to go into too great detail.
Workers must not remove guards except for cleaning and must put them back before using them again. They


must tell their employers if safety devices become damaged and they must not ride on drawbars. I am glad to know that I have the support of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) in this. It sounds innocent enough, but accidents have happened. Workers must not get on or off moving machines while towing. These are particularly dangerous practices which have been the cause of many serious accidents, some of them, I am sorry to say, fatal.
The Regulations provide that a worker should not start a self-propelled machine except from the proper driving position. Some people might say that this sounds grandmotherly, but I am glad again to know that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West supports me. This practice has been the cause of accidents. Nor should a worker leave that position when the machine is in motion except for special emergency. Getting on or off moving machines can cause many accidents.
In addition to the obligations imposed upon farmers and workers, for the first time in these farm safety Regulations obligations are imposed upon the sale by manufacturers and dealers of any field machinery. The Regulations prohibit the sale or hire of new machines for use in agriculture unless they comply with the safety requirements. This we think necessary because safety is as much a matter of good design as of fitting guards and we need to ensure that new machines come into the hands of farmers properly equipped from the start. That does not mean that many of the machines already in use are not well equipped. Once they are in use it is the responsibility of the employers and workers to keep them safe. These are the principal features of the Regulations.
The cover a wide variety of machines and therefore contain a good deal of detail which I think is necessary if the Regulations are to achieve the purpose which we intend. We have done our best to strike the right balance and to ensure that there will be adequate and satisfactory safeguards without there being so much detail that difficulty arises over ensuring that they are complied with. I assure the House that the

requirements are practical and necessary to safeguard workers. I know that hon. Members will not pick out individual items on which to comment. This is a matter of danger to life and limb of the men working on the land. No doubt it would be possible to make fun of individual sentences but they have been included for a specific and genuine humane purpose.
All the interested organisations have been consulted and it has been possible to meet many of the views which have been expressed. It has taken some time and of course there have been divisions of opinion on some points, but I am glad to be able to say that we have achieved a wide measure of agreement and we are grateful for the help which we have received from many people and organisations. There are certain requirements, such as those relating to towing devices, the maintenance of guards and the prohibition of riding on drawbars, which will come into operation three months after the Regulations are made.
In view of the large number of field machines now in use which could be improved by guarding, and the effect on the design and manufacture of new machines which these Regulations are bound to have, some time must be allowed for the main requirements of the Regulations to take full effect. For the new field machines the main requirements will operate from 1st July, 1964. This gives adequate time and strikes a fair balance between the demands of reasonable safety and the legitimate need of the machinery suppliers to make the necessary alterations.
There are some complicated problems of redesign and production and therefore it is reasonable to leave a fair amount of time for that to be carried out economically. Some manufacturers have already started. They have prided themselves in the past on the safety of their machines. Others are fitting new guards to existing designs. For many of the machines now in use the problem is one of adaptation and of providing guards and other fittings. This will make demands on local workshops where much of the work will be done. It cannot all be done at once and so the Regulations will allow a period. We have put the machines in five classes each with its own operative date.
These are the statutory requirements, but in the interest of his workers and for his own peace of mind the wise farmer will, I am sure, give early consideration to what is necessary and not wait until the last moment before the Regulations come into effect. The Agriculture Departments will use all available means to inform the people concerned of their responsibilities under the new Regulations, and will help them. We shall publish a leaflet explaining the detailed requirements in a form which will be easy to understand. More general announcements such as reminders will be broadcast and published in the Press. The Department's safety inspectors will always be ready to advise and help not only farmers but manufacturers and dealers.
Mechanisation has been of immense value to farming and to the community as a whole and in many ways it has made much of the work less back breaking. But machines have brought new risks, and we must accept that. It is not generally recognised how high the accident risk on the land is, nor how high the accident rate is, and in that I include not only fatal accidents, but serious injuries which can hamper or even incapacitate for life a man who may be the bread-winner of a family. Every industry has its special risks and in agriculture workers are often alone when an accident occurs, and that in itself presents its own special problems.
Hence I would hope that it is agreed that there is a need for the Regulations to minimise those risks. If these Regulations can save what may seem even a small number of families from the death or serious injury of a member, they deserve the welcome and support not only of the House, but of the country.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that, even with all the delays laid down in Schedule 2, he will have a corps of inspectors to ensure the application of these Regulations? Secondly, can he tell us why it takes from 1962 to 1968, which, after all, is six years, to put Regulations of this kind into effect for the protection of farm workers?

Mr. Vane: All hon. Members will pay tribute to our inspectors, who have done a great deal. I said in the House not

long ago that we were reorganising the service to some extent and there will be more of our staff who have had training in this work and who will be able to help. Many will be combining this work with other duties, and there will also be a smaller corps of specialists.

Mr. Loughlin: How many does the Minister expect to get?

Mr. Vane: I could not give that figure off the cuff, but we are expanding the service.
I know that this seems to be taking a long time and I knew that some hon. Members would ask why. We have gone into this matter very carefully. This is a very big task and we felt that to carry it through smoothly it would be better to give adequate time. However, I appreciate that it seems a long time and we shall hope to improve upon it.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there will be no attempt to probe the details, and even though the phraseology of the Regulations may sound peculiar at times, we are anxious that we should have improved safety in agriculture. I shall not make a long speech. I had hoped that we would have had a longer debate on this subject, but, unfortunately, we were rather preoccupied about silage. Silage is very important, but safety is much more important. I hope that my hon. Friends will not be touchy about this.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)
 rose—

Mr. Peart: I am only saying that safety for the farm worker is more important than subsidies for silage production. I should have thought that in saying that I would have had the support of my own side of the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) will join me in asking some questions, because he represents the workers' union, and the Regulations are the result of consultations among the various farm organisations and the workers concerned. I regard this as important, much more important than any other aspect of agriculture which we have discussed this evening.

Mr. Loughlin: I know that my hon. Friend's intentions are good, but he must not construe the fact that we have been prepared to debate the subsidy on silage as evidence of any intention to delay this topic so that we could not adequately debate it.

Mr. Peart: I am not saying that. I am just saying that as a matter of priority, I should have preferred a major debate on this topic rather than on that. If my hon. Friends wish to stay longer, I shall be delighted to listen to their contributions. But I regard this as the most important of the agricultural matters which we have discussed this evening. I do not in any way belittle those who are prepared critically to examine the incidence of subsidies. That is the purpose of an Opposition. I am merely saying that the interest of the workers in the industry, which are covered by the 1956 Act, deserve our attention perhaps to an even greater extent.
The powers contained in Section 1 of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, are of great importance to thousands of agricultural workers. Section 1 provides that Regulations may be made
for protecting workers employed in agriculture against risks of bodily injury or injury to health arising out of the use of any machinery, plant, equipment or appliance….
This is a very important Act, and these Regulations made under it are very important. I cannot say too often that I should have thought I would have had 100 per cent. support on my side that this is more important than discussions on silo subsidies.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West will take part in the debate and ask questions. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that this covered the sale of field machines. I am under the impression that it covers also the letting and hire for use in agriculture. The hon. Gentleman did not mention this.

Mr. Vane: I mentioned that.

Mr. Peart: I apologise. I am glad that it is clear. Many people hire machines. It is very important that we should have strict safety precautions. My hon. Friend the Member

for Norfolk, South-West, who represents many agricultural workers, is as anxious as I am to ensure that the inspectorate service is satisfactory. I want to be certain that the inspectorate service has kept pace with the new legislation and the Regulations made under it. Figures can no doubt be given, but I ask merely for a broad assurance.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: I agree entirely with the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about the importance of these Regulations. Silo is important, but the safety of the people working in agriculture is of paramount importance. That is why I welcome the proposals contained in the Regulations. Anything designed to minimise the risk of accidents on farms receives my whole-hearted support. In recent years the number of accidents in agriculture has assumed alarming proportions. Nearly 150 people were killed on farms last year. About 50 were killed by tractors overturning. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate the seriousness of this aspect of farm safety, because I think that some years ago he had the unfortunate experience of having a near-relative— a brother-in-law, I think—killed in a tractor accident.

Mr. Vane: Mr. Vane indicated assent.

Mr. Hilton: In this connection I wish that the Regulations had gone a little further. I hope that the Minister, in conjunction with the manufacturers, will try to ensure that a safe cab is attached to tractors. I understand that this has been done in some countries and has proved satisfactory. If it could be introduced in this country it would further reduce the number of serious accidents on farms.
It is true, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that safety in agriculture must be a joint effort between farmers and workers if it is to be successful. It is a fact that many of the safety precautions are plain common sense and have for years applied in industry. I see no reason why farm workers should be exposed to the risks from which factory workers have been protected for many years.
I am all in favour of these proposals. But it is useless to introduce such Regulations as these unless we have an inspectorate capable of ensuring that they are carried out. We have in operation a number of Regulations for safety on farms, but on too many farms they are not being carried out. Too frequently we receive reports that there are no toilet or washing facilities and no first-aid equipment, and that machinery is unsafe and unsuitable; and the reason is that at present there are too few inspectors to ensure that farmers carry out their obligations.
The Minister has recently assured us that it is intended in the near future to increase the number of inspectors. I appeal to him once again to take the matter very seriously. I am sure that it is right in principle that we should have all these safety Regulations, but until we have sufficient inspectors to ensure that they are carried out, they will not be carried out as we all wish so that the number of accidents on farms is reduced.
If I have one complaint about the Regulations, it is that there will be a long delay before the whole of them can be brought into operation. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to ascertain whether it is necessary to wait until 1968, as the Statutory Instrument states, before all machines are controlled. That is a very long while, and in the meantime the lives and limbs of farm workers will be in jeopardy. If the Minister could speedily increase the number of inspectors so that the Regulations could be brought into operation within a year or two, he would earn the gratitude of all farm workers.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. J. M. L. Prior: It is good that the Regulations follow an Act introduced by a Conservative Government. When I hear some of the comments made by the Opposition, I am glad to know that that is the case.
We ought to appreciate that the Regulations must be interpreted sensibly. I agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) that they are very important. But I do not agree with him when he says that there are not enough inspectors or that the

inspectors cannot do their job. My personal experience is that they have managed to do their job very well so far.

Mr. Hilton: The Minister himself admitted to me in the House recently that there are insufficient inspectors to carry out this important task. If the Minister admits this, I see no reason why the hon. Member should now say that there are plenty of inspectors, for that is untrue.

Mr. Prior: I do not know the Minister's experience. My experience is that they came to my farm early on and went through it with a toothcomb. Some of the things which the inspector said ought to be carried out were quite unnecessary, quite apart from the fact that they cost me a great deal of money.
One of the troubles about these Regulations is that although the men start by putting on the necessary guard and shield, in farm work there is always a rush against the weather, and when something goes wrong the men of their own accord take all the guards off in order to get the job done more quickly.
Some of these Regulations must be looked at very carefully. My hon. Friend said that there had been full consultation with all the interested parties. The people who know what is unnecessary and what is necessary are the inspectors on the job. It is my feeling—and I have to be careful here—as I have talked with the inspectors on this subject that they are not consulted, and that the consultation goes only as far as the chief inspector and does not get down to the people on the job. Before some of these Regulations are introduced, I hope that the inspectors on the job will be consulted.
I find it difficult to understand one or two of the Regulations. For example, every field machine must have
a seat of adequate strength, being either fitted with a backrest, or otherwise so shaped as to protect the worker against slipping from the seat…
If anyone has ever slipped from the back of his seat, I shall be surprised, and I regard this provision as being superfluous. The Regulations must be sensible and must be interpreted sensibly. Quite often it is necessary for a machine to be left running. Take balers, for example; when one has a


loose bale which has not been tied up by the string, the tractor driver gets down from the baler, leaves the baler running, goes round the back and collects the loose hay, and brings it round to the front and feeds it into the pick-up of the baler. From now on, according to the Regulations, that will be illegal.

Mr. Percy Browne: It will not be illegal. Under Part IV, Regulation 17 (1, b), it is in order.

Mr. Prior: I am afraid that I did not follow the reference. I will take my hon. Friend's word for it.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) is wrong.

Mr. Browne: May I read the relevant passage:
Provided that if any part of a field machine required to be guarded is not in motion the guard may be removed therefrom by a worker …(b) for carrying out any essential adjustment to such part while it is in motion, being an adjustment which cannot otherwise be carried out.

Mr. Prior: This is not an adjustment; this is part of the working of the machine.
We must interpret these Regulations with a great deal of sense. I am worried that farm workers may get a bit too casual with farm machinery. We do not necessarily guard against accidents by having everything guarded too well, because there are a hundred-and-one ways in which accidents can occur. The most remarkable farm accident I ever came across was where a man was operating a corn elevator. The corn made dust, which made the man sneeze. His false teeth fell out and he grabbed at them in trying to stop them from going up the elevator—and he lost two fingers. That is an example where a guard could operate to the employee's advantage.
Above all, we must keep a sense of proportion about these Regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend will see that the inspectors are consulted—the men who do the job of inspecting day-to-day on the farm. They have treated farmers so far with the utmost respect, kindness and sensibility. I hope that they will continue to do so. I hope that when pressure is brought to bear it will be on the manufacturers. They are the people who need to be watched and on whom

the law should operate most strictly. They are the people who should design proper equipment, safe to be used. If the Regulations are to be enforced I hope that they will be the people who will suffer first from them.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: There are two reasons for my short intervention in this debate. One is the public rebuke administered by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) to myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). The other is the contribution just made by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I consider these Regulations to be of supreme importance to agricultural workers. I am not concerned what Government put into effect Regulations of this kind if the Regulations are designed to give the safeguards to people who are engaged in an industry.
When I made a short intervention in the debate on silos I did so believing—I think correctly—that there is no time restriction tonight and that if I considered it necessary to deal with certain points in that debate it did not mean that I thought this debate any less important. I welcome these Regulations because they make up an agricultural workers' charter which should have been brought in many years ago. If I have any reservations on them it is on two points which I raised with the Parliamentary Secretary before he sat down.
It is not true to say that there are enough inspectors to cover the whole of the farming community in addition to their present commitments. I was a trade union official before I became a Member of this House and I know of the good work done by the inspectorate. My experience of both male and female inspectors was that they were a good body of people seeking to do a job in most difficult circumstances. Whilst it may be relatively easy for a corps of inspectors to carry out periodical inspections of factories in a city like Birmingham, the Parliamentary Secretary must realise that when one is dealing with farms the number of visits per day must be restricted because of the travel time involved. Therefore, the number of inspectors required in the agricultural industry pro rata to the people employed


will be far greater than in any other industry.
One reason why I raised this question with the hon. Gentleman was that I wondered what degree of thought had been given to building up the corps of inspectors who will be required within the next two years if these Regulations are to be applied. This matter has not been sprung on the Department in a week and I should have thought that at this stage the hon. Gentleman would have been able to make some assessment of the number of inspectors required year by year to the point when all the provisions come into effect in 1968. Apparently no thought has been given to it. I urge on the Minister the necessity to give very serious thought to this matter, to get on with the job of recognising that the number of inspectors who will be required will be substantial, and to try to enrol the right type of people for the job.
I wish to refer to the time that is to elapse before the full provisions come into effect. The year 1968 is a long way off and these provisions are designed to eliminate accidents in agriculture. It would be a crime if, having recognised the necessity for these Regulations, we were so neglectful of our responsibilities as to condemn a single agricultural worker to the danger of accident merely because we have decided that the provisions should not come into effect before 1968. I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of bringing the date forward.
I now turn to the second reason for my speech. In the speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft we had the authentic voice of the more backward farmer. He complained that an inspector had been to his farm and that not only did it put him to some personal inconvenience but that it cost him some money. He said "it cost me a great deal of money."
From then onward he reiterated the sort of arguments that were advanced by reactionary employers against the whole of the Factory Acts since the time of Lord Shaftesbury. He is following in the historic footsteps of those who would consider the question of cost before the life and limb of the workers in the industry. [Interruption.] That is

true. I ask those hon. Gentlemen who do not agree with the inference that I have drawn from the hon. Member's speech to read closely the report of his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There was a constant reiteration about difficulty in interpretation and application of the Regulations. There was the oft-repeated assertion that the people who were more likely to disregard the Regulations would be the workers themselves. I have heard that sort of argument time and again when I have had to go to employers and tell them that they were not complying with the Factory Acts. They have said, "We see that the guards are on but the workers want to make an extra 2½d. an hour and so they take the guards off."
I want the Minister to resist any attempt by any section of the industry to water down the Regulations solely on the ground that they may be difficult to apply. Of course, they are going to be difficult to apply. In an industry where safety Regulations have been virtually non-existent, obviously it is going to be difficult to get the employers to adjust their minds to the need to apply regulations. I accept that the farmers—who, I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary, have been consulted and have subscribed to the Regulations which we are debating—will do their utmost to ensure that they are applied.
I am not saying that the farming community is any worse than another other community. It is only that element within its ranks so ably represented by the hon. Member for Lowestoft that I fear, and I ask the Minister to ensure that the agitations which may spring from the element to which I have referred within the farming community after the Regulations have been in operation for a short time will not lead to any watering down of the Regulations.

Mr. Percy Browne: I think the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) will find that most farmers will do their best to see that these Regulations are carried out. I know that I shall. I have two men who work on my 100 acres. They have been with me for 14 and 12 years respectively, and I should dislike an accident to happen to either of them.
I want to say a word not about whether the tying up of a baler that has broken  an adjustment or not, but about the manufacturers as they come into these new Regulations. I find that the reason why most guards are taken off is because the grease points of machines are often placed in such a position that one needs to be either double-jointed or have a grease gun like a corkscrew to get at them. So off comes the guard, and very often it is not put back. My hon. Friend should ensure that manufacturers work to a standard so that these points for normal repair and maintenance are easily accessible.
It is true that half the accidents are caused by tractors overturning. The tractor's centre of gravity has to be fairly high to go through mud and so on, but there are two points here. First, having seen several accidents, it is my experience that nearly always the tractor involved in the accident has worn tyres, and that the accidents occur mostly when the ground is hard. I think that it would be worth while to write into these Regulations that inspectors have power to ensure that worn tyres are replaced, because this is the main cause of tractors turning over.
Secondly, and I say this with all seriousness, particularly on steep ground it would be a great advantage if some form of anchor could be devised which would be part of the tractor and could be let down in times of crisis. Last week I was baling in a steep field and the tractor almost ran away with me every time I went downhill. There was fortunately a bit of flat ground at the bottom of the hill which enabled me to stop and so avoid going over a precipice. This frequently happens in my part of the country. If the driver applies the brakes, the wheels lock and he goes for a burton.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an exciting reminiscence and immensely interesting, but we cannot amend the Regulations by adding to them. We can either approve them, or not.

Mr. Browne: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that the point has been taken.
Finally on the question of tractors, I hope that manufacturers will be encouraged to ensure that the guard for the power take-off on the back of a tractor

can be easily removed and replaced. At the moment one has to fiddle about with three screws, and the guard rarely fits once it has been removed.

12.9 a.m.

Mr. Peart: May I, with the leave of the House, say a few words before the Minister replies?
I must say this publicly, because my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) mentioned it. I in no way intended a public rebuke for his contribution to the debate on the Silo Scheme. I merely said that I thought we had spent rather a long time on silos and I was concerned that we would not spend enough time on agricultural safety. I am glad that I provoked my hon. Friend into making a contribution and I hope he will not be too sensitive. After all, we are all anxious to have safety.
I welcome the Regulations and I am glad that my hon. Friend, who represents an agricultural workers' union, put his case. Let us be frank, discussions after midnight do not get the same Press and publicity as earlier debates. I was anxious that a full discussion of this matter should take, place and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that my hon. Friends and I support the Regulations most strongly.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Vane: Although we cannot prevent every accident by legislation, we are undoubtedly doing something worth while tonight. We need the co-operation of all concerned because we want to build up a healthy respect for the system of safety and our inspectors will do their work, not only in a police sense, but with a sense of education. It will take time, but I am sure that this is the right step. Regarding the number of inspectors, hon. Members will recall that when I spoke on this point I said that we had in mind an expansion of the number of inspectors and I do not think that any hon. Member will have cause for complaint about there being too few inspectors to do the job. As I said, there is a great deal of reorganisation going on and that will mean that all our officials, as well as others, will be fully trained in their duties.

Mr. Willis: When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary talks about the


inspectors being trained and the other plans, does that include Scotland? Does everything he is saying apply to Scotland?

Mr. Vane: I am speaking broadly. I have England and Wales particularly in mind, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland confirms that the same is happening in Scotland.
Regarding the time lag, I realised that the time we put in would invite criticism but, having considered the matter, I realised that there was no point in puting in a time we could not achieve. There is no reason why we should not make fast progress, but it must be genuine progress. Remember, this is the tenth of a series and while it may be possible to improve matters in this connection, we shall have to see how things go as time passes.
As to the problem of overturning tractors, this is indeed a subject on which I have special feelings. It is the cause of more fatal accidents than any other and it is true that one other country has special regulations. I can assure the House that we are in close touch with all the organisations concerned, the farm workers, farmers, manufacturers, and so on, to see whether we can gain anything by designing a Regulation. However, we must not jump too readily to the conclusion that the conditions in other countries are so similar to our own that the same Regulations could be operated and the same benefits derived. I knew that the Regulations under discussion would receive a general welcome and I am glad that that has been confirmed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Field Machinery) Regulations, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 31st May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[27th June]

INCOME TAX AND PROFITS TAX (GAS COUNCIL AND AREA BOARDS)

Resolution reported,
That provision shall be made for charging the Gas Council to income tax and the profits tax as if it were carrying on a trade or business, and as if the trades or businesses of Area

Boards within the meaning of the Gas Act, 1948, formed part of that trade or business, and for matters arising out of or connected with the provision so made.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Instruction to any Committee to whom the Finance Bill may be re-committed that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

Orders of the Day — NEW SCHOOL, BLAYDON-WINLATON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Robert Woof: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise a matter which has caused some public disturbance in my constituency. I feel bound to go to the limit in speaking on behalf of Durham County Education Committee and the Blaydon Urban District Council. The position which has arisen is due to the refusal of the Minister of Education to include the proposed Blaydon-Winlaton modern school in the 1963–64 school building programme.
My attention was called to this problem principally by the Blaydon Urban District Council. Being responsible for exercising judgment in respect of local needs, the authority feels deeply disappointed with the view taken by the Minister of the prospects for the area. A real sense of grievance has been created as a result of the authority's failure to gain the Minister's support, and the clerk to the urban district council has accordingly written to me entreating me to plead with the Minister on behalf of the council. The fact that I am directly associated with the area in question obliged me to write to the Minister, and I took the opportunity to appeal to him to reconsider his decision.
I should like to refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the reply which I received from his right hon. Friend, in which he states that:
First priority had to be given to projects required to provide school places for children


in, for example, some large new housing estates and New Towns, who would otherwise have no schools to attend.
In the light of events, I will set aside all temptation to provide an analysis and evaluation of such a restriction, but I must express some disturbance of mind at the thought that the progress of education, which is dependent on a programme of school building, may be retarded.
I do not intend to under-estimate the Minister's reply, and it is right to make it clear that he further states, in his own hand-writing, that he will keep the project in mind. This is a somewhat encouraging feature of his reply, but as it appears to be the only pledge made by him it far from satisfies the wishes of all concerned, and in the circumstances I feel compelled to go into some detail on the matter, because I want to bring the present position into prominence.
The issue interests me profoundly. I do not wish to consider it in a narrow or one-sided fashion. I simply wish to state the facts in proclaiming the need for this new school. I must postulate what I regard as a valid reason which must be borne in mind. Broadly speaking, it concerns the fabric of the communal provision of housing accommodation for the education service. Even though the present situation is a long way from meeting current demands, the work which has been executed as an obligation and responsibility by the Blaydon Urban District Council has been carried out in a very commendable way. To draw an arbitrary conclusion, I would have to concentrate on the summary of the Minister's distinction in respect of resources available to be applied to school buildings on new housing estates.
This begs so many questions that I cannot possibly deal with it properly in the time at my disposal, but it is clear that for some years there has been a need for an upward movement in this respect in the Winlaton area. This can be dealt with only in terms of the density of population requiring accommodation, and anyone who studies the situation there must appreciate the way in which the local authority has sought to tackle the problem, especially in the replacement of houses that have long outlived their habitability.
Much attention has been devoted to the type of property built in the last century, during the period of unregulated urban growth, and these landmarks have slowly disappeared. There has been a considerable transition, both in respect of enlargements and improvements, due to the fact that no less than 1,850 houses have been built since the war. The analogous change in the order of the housing estates has increased the population to nearly 9,000 people and in all the throes of planning, a way has been left open for every consideration of educational need.
Such changes, no doubt, are advantageous and welcome to general progress in this as in other similar housing developments. Though varied and necessary, they illustrate how common features of change are to be observed. They have been going on steadily for some time and will continue to breathe a fresh atmosphere.
To all appearances, this has become cumulative in effect, and for obvious reasons the wielding of educational needs of the area has been simultaneously determined. The more we observe this, the more we should recognise that the implications of continuous integration in the structure of the neighbourhood could not occur without changes in functions. Inasmuch as it has become the transcendant objective of the authority to raise the standard of housing facilities, however, I regret to have to say that there remains a lack of providing well-meaning intentions for educational opportunity.
Far from wanting to misrepresent the facts, I must state that a school already exists, but it is of such a quality and size as to be extremely inadequate to meet present-day educational demands. Moreover, much evidence of practical value can prove how all the physical changes have helped decisively to mould a pressing desire for a new school. But because the conditions are prejudicial to the advance of education, and as an aim of sincerity in being determined that something must be done, one must judge the merits of the proposal submitted to the Minister by examining it from the standpoint of seeking a remedy to remove defects which stand in the way of establishing a more secure dominance.
I will not linger over the history of the school except to say in merest detail that it was built in 1877. In its day, it would have been admirable, but, in line with the character of old schools, it has not the facilities to allow scholars to pursue vocational training which is deemed necessary. One's mind hurries back to the time when limitations were placed on vocations; and whatever encouragement may have been given, it remains true to say that nothing exceeds the general appreciation of attempts to succeed in the task of raising personal capacity and attainment.
With several other sources of interest, it may be deemed natural for many past images to be recalled in those early strivings to control the essential steps of learning. While I believe, however, that there can be no greater ecstasy than that which comes from educational advance, I must at the same time confess to the House that education is a subject which I would prefer to leave to the experts. Even though they may differ over details, I must regard its full purpose as being to fight life's battle, thus enabling people to adapt themselves to their environment.
No less do I realise the precariousness of the present difficulties of the school in question. In many essential respects, the effectiveness of a case will not be clear unless the conditions under which it operates are specified. Therefore, while prevailing impressions and my own judgment might be imperfect, I cannot do much more than acquiesce in revealing comments made by Her Majesty's inspectors in reports on the conditions of the school.
The dominant theme is that inadequacy of accommodation through buildings being dispersed in so many units makes the administration of the school very difficult. It has been possible to continue its use by the provision of overcrowded temporary classrooms. I may add that I find it useful to pursue the point a little further, as it is reasonable to assume that the main object is to underline the need for replacement. But because such explicit conclusions provide candour and firmness of opinion, one would at least think that it would influence some verve in getting rid of the old board-school type of building.
I suppose it is necessary to supplement generalisations by specialisation as what matters most is the work done in the school. But to work in dismal conditions is a difficult task. It may well be that enterprising teachers have assisted bright scholars to achieve remarkable results, for which, incidentally, they have most deservedly gained a large measure of respect and esteem in the locality. To take cognisance of these facts is vitally important. After all, we should be concerned at the extent of intolerable conditions. If there is one thing which is truly admirable it is perseverance. It can be a preserver of peace. While this remains the case everything justifies the conclusion that the schools will not be able to cope with the effects of the significant change in new housing development and all the additional school places required.
I believe that such a background makes it reasonable to accept that it is not paradoxical thinking on the part of Durham County Education Committee and the Blaydon Urban District Council to press for the new school. The special interest and claim to consideration is not conclusive as they proudly point to one of the objectives of the Act of 1944 which happens to be in the concept of commitment to provide real secondary education for all children.
Looking at the brighter side in so far as professed ideas are concerned, we know that many modern schools have achieved considerable success, especially from the vocational aspect, in preparing scholars to look ahead to the kind of work when they leave school. As I understand it, vocational preparation is accepted as a medium for gradual adjustment with a view to realising one's own potentialities and can only be a subordinate part of preparation for life itself.
Perhaps it is better to think that most people can look with just pride on the immense progress of education underlying an equal advance with its application to higher mental development. But while there is so much to be proud of and so much to boast about, we find, unfortunately, a very different picture in the antiquated provisions which I have tried to outline.
Co-ordination of definite interest in the practical affairs of education is universally discussed, but I am very much afraid that nothing could be more harmful to real progress than having to endure outmoded establishments. It is virtually impossible to evade the problem in its bearing on rising and permanent demands. The pressure cannot be withstood permanently for it implies if the authorities are to look forward confidently that something very different from the present set-up will be needed to establish a much wider foundation.
The basic issue is the gnawing problem to contend against the anticipated increase in the school roll. Such a prospect is undoubtedly provided by the dimensions of housing development which indicates how service may best be performed in the transition from school to work. It is in this respect that I believe it is only when scholars stand upon the level of equal opportunity that the differences in human endowments are manifest.
Naturally, our concern is increased to the extent to which facilities are available, but I also believe that the justice of the claim rests on the location of the proposed modern school through being situated on the outskirts of the Tyneside industrial area where a wide variety of industries and employers of labour look for broadly educated entrants who can be trained. It is for the reason of these specific problems that I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider with his right hon. Friend to let this project proceed. It cannot be waved aside. Overwhelming fristration must be avoided as any further prolonged delay will have a detrimental effect in giving the school a vital feeling of purpose, and this depends entirely on making the right choice to be of general benefit to all concerned.

12.30 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) for giving us the opportunity to consider this quite important matter, and I am sure that the House is grateful to him for putting the considerations involved so clearly. We in the Department know that these two schools are unsatisfactory

in many ways, and we ourselves would like to have them replaced. We know how much the local authority in Blaydon would like to see them replaced and how much Durham County Council would like to see better schools provided. I hope that the House will allow me again to retail the conditions under which we must apply our building resources at the present time.
We have to make quite sure that wherever there is a need for a school place for a child that school place will be provided. That is our first priority. Durham County itself has a good deal of experience in this matter, for it has experienced the building of at least two new towns and has seen great shifts of population from one side of the county to another and great new housing estates develop. It knows that in these conditions new schools have been provided wherever needed to meet the demands of those populations. That is our first priority and that priority we have always met.
Our second priority has been to see that the requirements of the Education Act, 1944, and, more particularly, the requirements of the 1958 White Paper, have been fulfilled—that there shall be provided for the senior children proper secondary education. This has involved us in making sure that we can separate senior children from the juniors and in the abandonment of all-age schools which were a heritage of the periods before the war. This means that we must be ready to provide new secondary school accommodation wherever it is needed in order to complete the reorganisation of all-age schools.
This is not yet complete across the Whole country, and in the County of Durham there are still some all-age schools to replace; but our second priority is to do just that. We are pressing forward as hard as we can to make quite sure that at the end of the five-year period that reorganisation programme will be complete, or that at least there will be committed building programmes projects which will secure its completion.
My right hon. Friend has given an assurance to Durham County Council that we will do our best to see that within that five-year programme Durham County itself, which has a very


large backlog of this problem, will be able to satisfy the requirements of the 1958 White Paper. That is our second priority. I must tell the House that during the four yeans so far of the five-year programme we have found that most of our resources have been absorbed by these first two priorities.
There still remains the third of the priorities, which is the replacement of old, unsatisfactory and inadequate schools by new, modern and more satisfactory buildings. The schools to which the hon. Member referred are in almost every sense unsatisfactory. There is no difference between us as to whether these schools should be replaced by new buildings. Of course they should. We are experiencing here, as we are in many other places in the country, the results of raising standards. As we build new schools anywhere, everyone must look across his frontier and see these new schools and ask "Why cannot my child be educated in a school as splendid as that?". As these new schools appear in new areas, so there grows the air of discontent surrounding them. I think that I know the hon. Gentleman well enough to be sure that he will join me in paying tribute to the staffs of these two schools in their present buildings for the magnificent efforts they make and the splendid results they achieve, in spite of the difficulties under which they labour.
We are not complacent just because the results are good. We want to see the buildings replaced. I cannot say when it will be possible for us to promise that new buildings will be provided for the Winlaton County School and the Blaydon East County Secondary School. I do not know. This depends to some extent on the priority that the Durham County Council gives to the replacement of these schools. I must not suppose that there will be a battle between the Blaydon Rural District Council and the Durham County Council as to where the priority ought to lie. I do not know how that hand will be played when the times comes. I know that Durham County as a whole

has a number of very serious and pressing problems. The years before the war were not easy ones in counties like Durham. It was not easy to make provision for all the social services which made demands on the limited resources available.
I know that in recent years Durham, like other counties, has been trying to catch up on the long backlog, not of neglect, but of competition for limited resources. I think that we are now getting to a stage when we can see the end of this rather difficult road, but it will be some years yet before we manage to satisfy ourselves that all that is desirable has been done. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that his constituents are not neglected or overlooked. Their interests are as near to our hearts as are the interests of any other part of the community. We want to see real secondary education for all the senior children in the country, wherever they may be. We want to see an equality of educational opportunity broadly available across all the different communities which make up the land. It will not be easy, nor will it be accomplished quickly. But I should like the hon. Gentleman to be assured and I should like him to assure his friends at home that that is our target. We will work towards it with the greatest diligence and with the best will that we can muster.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that if the Durham County Council in considering its requirements for the 1964–65 programme, for which we have invited its submissions, cares to give this project—I know how difficult its other demands are likely to be—a high priority, we in the Department will consider it very carefully indeed. I will keep in touch with the hon. Gentleman in the hope that together we can be quite satisfied that the kind of conditions he has described and the demands he has made have been fully, carefully and fairly considered.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.